Values, Morals, and Obama

"Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
-- Barack Obama.

He sure has a way with words, doesn't he?? Pathetic.

What I Like And Dislike About Giuliani

Largely because of McCain-Feingold, (which denies free speech rights to issues organizations in the months leading up to elections - when the issues are most important) Senator McCain simply has no credibility with the conservative base of the Republican Party. As impassioned as his defense of the war on terror is, and as much as I appreciate ANYONE's defense of that under-reported important issue and viewpoint, McCain has already lost his most valuable asset as a national spokesman. Enter Giuliani, who has no similar problem on the war. At a New Hampshire "town hall" meeting Tuesday night, Rudy impressively handled citizen's questions regarding the war, and the president's prosecution of it. When the Democrat/media driven issue of the war somehow causing an abridgement of rights arose,

"Just about every personal right has been abridged in the war on terror," he said. "When will you say that's as far as I will go?"

Giuliani did not waste time or effort with his answer - with glorious attitude -

"I think you have grossly exaggerated the case," Giuliani responded. "And you didn't point out the other fact, and that is we haven't been attacked and we've been safe."
He defended the administration's domestic wiretapping program, tough interrogation techniques and the USA Patriot Act.
"So, no rights," Capodice said.
That drew a sharp retort from Giuliani: "That's hardly no rights!" he said. "You have more freedom than anyone in this world has ever had — and no one has taken that from you!"

While I can't vouch for the literal value of his statement, the fact is that whatever limitations there are to our constitutionally guaranteed rights have mostly been imposed by Democrats and politically liberal Supreme Court decisions. (Notable exception is the previously mentioned McCain-Feingold) Political-correctness, hate-speech, deprivation of the right to life of the unborn, are just a few of the many examples of the rampant fascism of the Democrat agenda. They simply cannot see the wisdom in the adage, "Be careful what you hope for!" Hate speech is a very dangerous lasso around our freedoms that is now being used by Muslims to keep Americans from discussing the serious threat their religion WILL someday present. Democrats desire a world where we are free - not TO BE what we want - but free from pain! Imagine a world free from struggle? Impossible so long as people are human...but there I go on my rant!! (((Focus! Giuliani!)))
Rudy of course loses it (his credibility) when he gets into issues not having to do with 9/11...
Some folks think that the tenth amendment only applies to the second amendment

Last week, after the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, Giuliani said it "does not alter the Second Amendment" and emphasized state-by-state gun control measures, which contrasted with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners.

Imagine state-by-state "religion controls" or state-by-state "equal protection" controls, and you quickly see how silly is his - and liberals/democrats/media - approach. On the other hand, there is no mention of any medical procedure anywhere in the constitution, and so those legal/social issues SHOULD be approached on a state-by-state basis as directed by the tenth amendment. Which is why the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v Wade is such an abomination under the law, even if one CAN accept 45 million dead babies by now.
If Fred Thompson gets into the action, I'll vote for him. If not, then my primary vote will go to Huckabee - I like him, plus it's a sympathy vote for being Bill Clinton's Lieutenant Governor Indiana has no say in the primaries anyway - and my vote in the election will go to whoever runs for the Republicans.

Juncture of Events: Apology for Eugenics, Defending Abortion

At first I thought that I'd merely learned something new about my Indiana home state's past. We apparently were the medical community's cutting edge at the beginning of the last century, and made what we now acknowledge were huge mistakes.
There were several pages of Yahoo! search results for the AP-Ken Kusmer article, almost all of which were titled "Indiana Apologizes For Role In Eugenics." The Fort Wayne (Indiana) News-Sentinel thought this was catchier..." Indiana apologizes for its sterilization of ‘imbeciles.’ "
Whilst looking around for names and places mentioned, I somehow came across a NARAL letter protesting "Bush's Abortion Ban." I'd never heard of it, surprise, because there is no such thing.

I care a lot about what the Supreme Court has to say about President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban. The same day I decided to terminate my pregnancy, lawmakers gathered in Washington, DC to discuss the ban, which could outlaw abortion as early as 12 weeks and has no exception for a woman's health.

The South Dakota legislature passed a law in 2005 requiring abortionists to advise their patients that the "procedure" will end the life of a human being. Planned (un)Parenthood won an injunction to delay enforcement until a court decides whether or not to allow the law. PP's objection is not that the statement is untrue, but that it infringes on the "free speech" of the doctor. That's the scary "Bush Abortion Ban."

(A) lower court said the legislation infringes doctors' First Amendment rights by requiring them to promote the state's ideology on an "unsettled medical, philosophical, theological, and scientific issue, that is, whether a fetus is a human being."
It is this injunction that the law's supporters are seeking to have overturned. Earlier, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit upheld the lower court's injunction, but now the full 11-judge panel will rehear the case.

Humanity has shown over and again that it will run into trouble every time it tries to differentiate between "human beings" and "persons." The United States had its issue with slaves and Germany with Jews (and others with a "life not worth living"). Eugenics tried to eliminate our responsibility to "imbeciles and paupers," as does abortion with the unborn. Instead of regarding our less fortunate brethren as guilt-inspiring, party-ending burdens, scripture reveals them to be God given opportunities for doing good deeds. Then Governor Hanly, devout Methodist by all accounts (in 1905 that meant something), should have seen that.
The lower court mentioned above does the same thing that Roe did in '73. We are, of course, only interested in what science and medicine have to say about the facts as they are known regarding any surgery, including abortion. The subject is obfuscated by the insertion and elevation of irrelevant opinions from the fields of "philosophy" and "theology" as if any other law on our books depended on pastor jimbo's acquiescence. The question in Law isn't whether the baby is a human being, it's whether the human being in the womb is a "person" and worthy of rights under the constitution. The '73 SCOTUS disingenuously asserted that since theologians and philosophers and scientists and doctors couldn't agree on when life begins then all we can do throw up our hands leave it to the doctor and the patient. Never mind that by the time we know something is in there, it's a human being, and it is definately alive.
Few of us can escape the charge of being offensive or burdensome to someone else. If an unborn child can be separated from personhood, if an "imbecile" can be likewise separated, if also a Jew or a Gypsy or a pauper, black skinned or Chinese or homosexual, then who can't?
Which brings us full circle back to eugenics. The unfortunate thing for its promoters was that the patient survived, and can as a "person" press charges.

Coleman was 17, married and eager to have children when she learned the truth about her surgery.
"Oh gosh, I didn't want to live. I hated my mother. I hated everybody that did this to me," she said.
Coleman sued her mother, the doctor and the judge in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and resulted in a landmark 1978 decision granting judges immunity in official actions. Duh!!

A shock worthy of Imus! Lawyers, judges and politicians exempt themselves from the more fearful consequences of their playground activities! Amazing.

"The Perfect Moral Storm of Our Times"

The two opening paragraphs from the bio provided at his website will suffice...

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.
Dr. Mohler has been recognized by such influential publications as Time and Christianity Today as a leader among American evangelicals. In fact, Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S".

Dr. Mohler didn't invent the idea of being able to predict homosexuality in an unborn child, or even instigate the conversation about the possibility of being able to re-direct genetic tendencies toward a heterosexual life. In the past, I've been fairly familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. However, I've never heard of Dr. Mohler, and can't affirm the credentials that Time, Inc would bestow.
But a recent (Mar 14) Mohler-authored article, titled, Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It? has received some attention for bringing to light some recent research into the possibility of biological causations of homosexuality and the reactions of others writers. And it's not just the "causations" that has folks buzzing about...the researchers think they may soon be able to reverse the unborn's tendencies.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing."

The article continues with descriptions of the research on rams that show that only a bare majority of male sheep are entirely hetero, and the cause is not environmental.
The question of course, is - "does this make homosexuality natural, and if natural, then "normal?" - and if natural and normal, then morally acceptable?" The answer may be for each parent to answer. If you KNEW that, if you do nothing, your still unborn son would mature with a sexual preference for other men, would you interfere if you could? It is already perfectly legal, with the help of many past gay activists (bedroom privacy), for the mother to abort that child for that reason. Mohler's article quotes another magazine article that puts it this way...

"A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?"

A question I can't find addressed anywhere is, "Would future parents face legal challenges from their children if they could have changed their child's homosexual tendency, but didn't?"
A search for some other opinions on all of this shed light on why the experiments center on sheep. I found this at Exodus International, first quoting an earthtimes.org. item... (my emphasis)

NEW YORK: Experiments conducted by scientists to change the sexuality of homosexual sheep have drawn ire from gay and lesbian activists. They are afraid the efforts could lead to extinction of homosexuality in humans.
The experiments have been approved by the government as farmers complained they are financially affected when one in 10 rams, on average, is gay. After extensive studies of the brains of the homosexual rams, scientists at the Oregon State University have been able to identify the processes that influence their sexual orientation.

This article actually makes the point that it's the homosexual rights activists that don't like the direction to which this research is heading, but they are also the ones who've been demanding that homosexuality be shown to be biologically based.

The scientists said their research is confined to reducing or eliminating gay sheep. Charles Roselli, a biologist leading the research team, said sexuality has been an under-studied subject because of political concerns.
"It's a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired," he said.

The article by Dr. Mohler is well done and highly recommended. He lists important reminders for all Christians, including that all of us are created in God's image, and a biological explanation for the temptation toward homosexual relationships does nothing to change that. Nor does it change the sinful nature of homosexuality. As a favorite pastor once told me, "No one ever went to hell because he was a homosexual. If ever there was a homosexual that was sent to hell, it was because he did not know Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. The same reason anyone else was ever sent there."


Almost, but not quite off topic, Dr. Mohler also brings up another related ethical dilemma, that of "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis." So far it is of concern only to those utilizing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another search led me to a 28 page pdf that discusses the genetic detection procedure in some detail.
All is great stuff, sure to keep you thinking well into the next decade, and beyond.

Why Can't Journalists Learn The Debate?

Anyone who seriously follows the abortion debate knows that Roe v Wade is only one half of the legal tragedy that occurred in Jan of 1973. The other half is Doe V Bolton, which is where the definition of "health" was declared. So, when you see something like this, in the Wash Times (which I'd like to think would know better) you know that you're being taken for a ride.

On Jan. 22, 1973, the court ruled on a Texas case that state abortion laws violated the U.S. Constitution's right to privacy. The court ruling, in effect, protected privacy rights until about the seventh month of pregnancy.

Roe's language demands an exception, to any concern for the human being in the womb, for the life or "health" of the mother. The way it is defined in the Doe decision, if it makes "mother" uncomfortable, the human baby is toast.

espresso beans to drudge