Time to Make „Unborn” the New Gay?

Last week marked 50 years since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his seminal „I Have a Dream” speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Fifty years ago, if someone had told the audience assembled at the National Mall that they would see a black man elected President in their lifetime, few would have believed it. It is truly remarkable how much America’s cultural landscape has evolved in the last half century. There are people alive today who can remember segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. They can remember a time when African Americans weren’t allowed to vote. But the laws changed, and slowly but surely, hearts and minds changed too. America still has a long way to go to heal the racial divide that for so long defined us, but the strides we’ve made are nothing short of remarkable.

Today there is a new civil rights movement underway, so we are told. This time, it’s not racial equality at issue, but marriage equality. And it’s not African Americans carrying the banner of protest, but homosexuals.

It’s been said by some that „gay is the new black.” In the same way that African Americans were once dehumanized, marginalized, and denied basic civil rights based on something they cannot control, i.e. the color of their skin, so today homosexuals claim that they are disenfranchised based on something equally outside their control – their sexual orientation. So successful has the LGBT community been in advancing this narrative, both the culture and the courts have gotten on board.

Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center are leading the charge in this area. In California, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a ban on „conversion therapy” for minors, asserting that „California has authority to prohibit licensed mental health providers from administering therapies that the legislature has deemed harmful.”

Underlying this position is the belief that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable. Like race, a person’s sexual orientation is something they are born with and something that cannot be changed. Proponents of this view maintain that to suggest otherwise is not only wrong, it is bigoted and harmful. For parents to guide their children away from the homosexual identity is not only misdirected, it is a form of abuse. There is one small problem with this theory. Turns out, sexual orientation is not the same as race. As more research is done, more evidence emerges to indicate that human sexual orientation is „fluid.” According to the recent studies reported by the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is not fixed from birth, but influenced by a variety of both biological and environmental factors.

So much for gay being the new black. All this talk about a new civil rights movement has got me thinking, however. For decades, one group has been persecuted, marginalized, and dehumanized based on innate factors completely outside of their control. This group has been the target of persecution more heartless and hateful than slavery and no less deadly than Hitler’s „Final Solution.”

Since 1973, over 55 million unborn children have been aborted in the United States. Why? Because when a tiny unborn person is deemed unwanted, or inconvenient, or imperfect, his or her human rights are discarded like yesterday’s trash. The unalienable rights articulated in our Declaration of Independence do not apply. If ever there was a civil rights tragedy in America, this is it.

Ironically, many gay rights activists are ideological bedfellows with the most radical of abortion-rights activists. Just check the websites of prominent Progressive „civil rights” organizations like the ACLU and you’ll see what I mean. These self-proclaimed defenders of humanity simultaneously decry the inhumane abuses perpetuated against gays and lesbians while championing the supposed „right” of women to kill their unborn child at any time for any reason.

If pro-lifers can learn anything from this sad state of affairs, it’s that there is great power in narrative. It’s all about winning hearts and minds. The LGBT community has successfully promoted a narrative that frames the same-sex marriage debate in terms of fundamental human rights. They have successfully brought the culture to the point where disagreeing with the gay lifestyle is tantamount to racism. And increasingly, the courts are buying into this narrative.

Those of us who view all human life as sacred, regardless of age, size, location, or whether it is wanted, need to take a page from this playbook. If gay is the new black, then we should do everything in our power to make „unborn” the new gay.


Vezi sursa articolului aici.

‘Green’ Activists Should Take A Hike

Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, radical Islam is on the march in much of the world, American cities such as Chicago resemble a war zone, our health-care system is on the verge of collapse, and yet a growing number of our “best and brightest” college and university students have decided to take a stand against … coal, petroleum and natural gas companies.


At more than 300 colleges and universities across the United States, these “green” activists are demanding that their schools instantly divest evil fossil-fuel stocks from their endowments. With much of the world spiraling out of control, these “future leaders” have taken it upon themselves to attack companies that employ millions of middle-class Americans and power our nation.

Said one of these student leaders, “We look at our schools as a representation of ourselves. I would like to know my school is putting its money in companies that are looking out for the best welfare of people.”

If one needed more evidence that little or nothing of value is being taught at these liberal “institutions of higher learning,” this temper-tantrum being orchestrated by a collection of hypocritical spoiled brats should stand as a prime example.

Why hypocritical? Well, it’s a better than even guess that virtually all of these “green” student activists drive cars, avail themselves of public transportation, wear shoes, turn on the heat in cold weather and the air conditioning in the summer, text nonstop, and use computers, video games, and tablets. All things which use or are made from fossil fuels.

Maybe these student activists would have all the universities and colleges divest Exxon Mobil Corp. stock and invest in Solyndra instead. Whoops. Forgot. That particular “green” company, where our green-enabling president invested over $500 million in taxpayer money while posing for a photo-op, went belly-up.

Perhaps these environmentally aware student activists would have their colleges and universities invest in the rest of President Obama’s $80 billion “clean-energy” program. No. That wouldn’t work either, as most of the “green” companies aided by that initiative have either declared bankruptcy, gone out of business, or will never show a dime in profit while continually sucking money from hard-working Americans.

If these “green” student activists truly believe in what they are selling, then they should stop wearing any fancy running shoes (made with petroleum products), give up using all electronics and walk to a “green” open-air school located in some nearby field.

That, or if they really want to make a lasting statement and sacrifice, they could join the armed forces and serve with the heroic young men and women their own age who actually are making a difference every single day.


Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Don’t Cry For Bono & (Really) Rich Phonies

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone

In addition to unions, other soak-the-rich because they’re evil types, and corporations-aren’t-people so we can destroy them without hurting anyone, President Obama hooked up with Bono of U2 fame. I love the music but hate the hypocrisy. U2 moved its businesses from Ireland years ago to avoid paying taxes. Moreover, the ONE Foundation created by Bono is nothing more than another pity Africa and make us feel better organization that rich socialists cobble together to assuage their guilt.

Consider that ONE raised $14.9 million in 2008 and distributed $184,732 to charities. The rest of the cash went toward salaries and administrative work.

These organizations are also around to try and embarrass western nations especially America. The fact that western nations have given poor nations over $2.0 trillion over the past fifty years never seems to be mentioned or appreciated. It’s the same within these nations where the richest people and corporations pay mountains of taxes only to be critiqued for not doing even more. It’s a ridiculous joke and takes all the attention off the fact that human beings owe it to themselves to change their lives.

All these would-be nice rich people that can’t wait to dig into pockets of others with less wealth in order to balance out a sense of guilt or a fit of anger are the biggest phonies in the world. They speak in the tongues of angels but their hands go into the pockets of well-off but not rich people.

Get past the glitter and the smiles and the talent and they are as cold as stone.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

A Warning to Moral Conservatives

If Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Michael Barone and others are right and Mitt Romney is our next president, we moral conservatives cannot take our foot off the gas. We cannot let up in our advocacy for life and family. We cannot relax or shift into neutral as if some great victory has already been won. To do so would be to make a fatal mistake, and four years from now we will be kicking ourselves again, vowing once more not to sell our souls to the Republican Party, claiming that this time we have learned our lesson, only to repeat the cycle four years hence.

But being forewarned is being fore-equipped, and that negative scenario does not have to unfold. Instead, if we do our job and urge the president to do his, calling him to account at every point and offering positive support, whether he fails or succeeds, our mission will continue unabated. In fact, the more he fails, the more will we realize that the responsibility for moral and social change falls on us, not on him.

Now, my hope is that President Romney will follow through on his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, that he will be a champion for the rights of the unborn, that he will appoint excellent justices to the Supreme Court, that he will offer compassionate and practical solutions to help and empower the poor, that he will push for a federal amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that he will defend DOMA in the courts in accordance with the pledge he signed for the National Organization of Marriage. (In stark contrast, one shudders to think what Mr. Obama would do if elected to a second term, barring a miraculous change of heart.)

That is my hope for President Romney, but it is not my expectation. Rather, I expect that his overriding emphasis will be on fixing the economy, that he will work hard for a bipartisan base, that he will seek to govern as a statesman who unites the country, and that he will avoid “divisive” issues. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if some of his first appointees were anything but moral conservatives.

Of course, this is not to downplay the importance of the economy, which itself has all kinds of moral implications. As stated in the recent New York Daily News endorsement of Romney, “Nine million jobs evaporated. The typical American family saw $50,000 vanish from its net worth, and its median household income dropped by more than $87 a week.” This is nothing to snivel at.

And if President Romney can help breach some of the deep divisions in our country, assuring the nation that he is the president of all Americans, that too would be a positive moral and social accomplishment.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

You Pick: Your Job or Your Health Insurance

The signature achievement of President Obama’s four years of office was the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. „ObamaCare”. Passed into law in 2010, and initially upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, ObamaCare has had an ongoing negative effect upon the employment situation in the United States since it was crammed through the House of Representatives and the Senate solely by members of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately for Americans, the ObamaCare job killing spree will only continue and get worse. The reason why has to do with a penalty tax that will be imposed upon all U.S. employers with 50 or more employees who currently provide their employees with what would be considered to be an „average” health insurance coverage plan today.

The Manhattan Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains how that works:


… if an employer offers insurance, but an employee qualifies for subsidies under the new health care exchanges because the insurance premium exceeds 9.5 percent of his income, his employer pays a penalty of $3,000 per worker. This combination of penalties gives a business a powerful incentive to downsize, replace full-time employees with part-timers, and contract out work to other firms or individuals.

The new law will make it harder for small businesses with 50 or more employees to compete with those with fewer than 50 employees.

When the employer mandates are phased in 2014, many businesses will be motivated to reduce the number of locations and move workers from full-time to part-time status. This will reduce employment still further and curtail the country’s economic growth.

Obamacare may be around, but will your doctor?

Over dinner with an anesthesiologist friend, we discussed his new job -specifically his „on call” schedule. He explained that he needed to get one of his partners to take his next day on call, but that it shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, he said that his partners vie for these call days. I was perplexed because this had not been my experience, so I asked him to elaborate. He said that the doctors in his group get paid according to how much they work, so they compete for extra call days.

In his former group, everyone was paid the same amount, regardless how much they worked. Hence, no one wanted extra call- it was a burden, and there was no incentive to work harder. By mid-afternoon, doctors attempted to remain inconspicuous so that they could slip out of the hospital unnoticed. In his new group, people volunteer to stay late and want to be sure that there are no patients still waiting for surgery before they call it a day.

There can be no better example illustrating the differences between a system which rewards hard work and personal responsibility versus one where all incentives are removed. Obamacare is emblematic of a system which destroys incentives to work and the reason why over 70% of physicians oppose it.

On our current path, hard work on the part of doctors is dis-incentivized. The $716 Billion being siphoned out of Medicare to pay for a new entitlement program, largely comes out of the pockets of physicians working to provide care to seniors. And then there is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

The IPAB is the most insidious of the 159 new agencies created under Obamacare. This board of 15 is unlikely to have any practicing physicians on it, but is charged with controlling Medicare spending by cutting payments to doctors if spending exceeds certain targets. Since they are not subject to Congressional oversight, it will be impossible to contest their decisions.

Both McKinsey and the Congressional Budget Office reported that businesses faced with the choice of high healthcare costs or modest penalties for failing to provide health insurance to employees, would choose the latter. Millions of employees will be „dumped” into the government healthcare option; Medicaid for all- the failed government plan which provides “insurance” for indigent patients. Reimbursements are so low, that only 30% of doctors are currently seeing new Medicaid patients.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Bad Rules

We take free speech for granted in America, unlike elsewhere. The  furor over that anti-Muslim video is the latest reminder of that. But freedom of speech is never safe, even here. Many colleges now  impose „civility codes.” Civility is nice, but enforcing a „civility rule”  against offensive speech would put an end to lots of useful provocative  speech. As a University of North Carolina student put it, „A picture of  Mitt Romney would offend 70 percent of residence hall students.”

Taping my Fox Business Network show at UNC, I also learned that  the college, to „protect” women, had dropped the word „freshman.” The PC  term is now „first year.” UNC also decreed that no student may  „implicitly” or „explicitly” ask for sex. (Then how do students get it?) Since sexual activity on campus continues, it’s clear that such  rules are often ignored. But there is danger in selectively enforced  rules. They let authorities punish those with unpopular ideas.

While in North Carolina, we ran across other assaults on freedom  of speech. Steve Cooksey started a blog about low-carb nutrition, which  included „Dear Abby”-style advice. The state told him that giving such  advice without a license is illegal! Cooksey stopped, but enlisted help from the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public-interest law group.  Together they sued the state for the free-speech violation. Unfortunately, a federal court dismissed the suit, saying that since the state took no formal action, Cooksey was not harmed. IJ will appeal.

My staff ran his advice by a Harvard nutritionist, who said it was  reasonable. But even if it wasn’t – even if it was stupid – people know that there’s plenty of garbage on the Internet.

„Why is it against the law to tell people to avoid grains?” Cooksey asked. „To tell diabetics to reduce carbs to help them normalize  their blood sugar? Why is that wrong?” It’s „wrong” when politicians are  eager to control everything – even speech about food. IJ lawyer Paul Sherman said „it would cost Steve thousands of dollars, and take years of his life, to get the dietitian license.” Not only that, it would take 900 hours of apprenticeship even  after Cooksey got his degree.

„Anyone who wants to can write a book about nutrition. What the  state of North Carolina has said is that you can write a book about  nutrition, but if you want to give one-on-one advice to someone, that’s  categorically forbidden.”

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Abortion Kills Children and Entire Populations

Since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in January 1973, more than 55 million babies have been aborted in America. If a number like “55 million” is hard to grasp, think of it this way – if you added together the populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and San Francisco, you would only have about 26.1 million people-less than half the number aborted.

Looked at in this way, it’s easier to understand just how many missing people “55 million” represents.

Yet the tremendous number of lives taken here actually pales in comparison to the number of human lives wiped out in other countries, where abortion has been legal for longer and Christianity sidelined more readily. In the former Soviet Union, where abortion for medical reasons was declared legal in 1955 and abortion for any reason was legalized in 1968, the number of abortions was approximately 113.2 million through 1980-a profoundly staggering number.

During this moral nadir the average Soviet woman had 8 abortions. As recently as 2008, abortion was still “the common method of birth control” in Russia. Starting from a ban on abortion and projecting forward just a few decades, it’s very difficult to grasp the magnitude of this human, demographic, and moral tragedy. Over time the de facto meaning of words like “medical necessity” has become “abortion on demand.” Might we be headed down the same path? Many today seem to be engaged in a form of moral and demographic solipsism-pretending or denying the reality that a loss of human life on this scale will have no effect. Some abortion advocates these days fight to prevent women from seeing ultrasound images of the babies they carry. Some will not even discuss the enormous numbers of unborn children dying each year or the cumulative total of humans lost to abortion in the United States.

In Russia-the largest nation on earth geographically-the population is down to an estimated 140 million, shrinking by several million each year. Put bluntly, they are killing themselves faster than they are replacing themselves. Immigration-legal or illegal-aside, do we really want to continue down this path toward national genocide?

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Is Obama is Losing the War For Women?

If there’s one consistent strategy Barack Obama’s reelection campaign has pursued, it’s trying to mobilize women on his behalf with rallying cries of free birth control. His tactics have ranged from declaring a literal ‘war on women,’ to evangelizing Hollywood actresses like Scarlett Johansson to blanketing television with ads admonishing women to be ‘scared’ of Mitt Romney.Initially, it looked like Team Obama’s relentless assault might pay off, as women – who broke for the President by 13 percent in 2008 – continued to line up behind him in early polling. However, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, released Monday, shows that his strategy of telling women which issues they are and are not supposed to care about is meeting with diminishing returns, as Mitt Romney pulls even with Obama among women in the swing states likely to decide the election:

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee has pulled within one point of the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-49%, and leads by 8 points among men.

Several months ago, I wrote that Chicago’s strategy of forcing women to be single-issue voters, telling them in ad after ad that they should base their vote solely on access to contraceptives and abortion, could easily backfire as issue-based surveys showed that women – like any other voters – consistently named jobs and the economy as the most important issues in this election. I’m relieved – but not surprised – to see that women are rejecting self-important lectures from out-of-touch celebrities in favor of a candidate who addresses them like fellow citizens and discerning voters, not the gals of Sex and the City.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Moroccan Pottery, Obamaphones, and Gaydar: How the Government Wasted Your Money This Year

Senator Tom Coburn released the Wastebook 2012 today detailing the 100 most egregious wastes of taxpayer money. The two hundred page report details waste in all manner of federal spending – from multi-billion dollar programs all the way down to a $300 grant to a small-town library for a Star Wars-themed event. It’s emblematic of the waste found everywhere in the federal budget.

Coburn details a $27 million U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program for pottery classes in Morocco. The program, which has a questionable premise in the first place, was doomed due to incompetence and mismanagement. Translators with a questionable grasp of English were hired and used materials unavailable to Moroccans. The Inspector General concluded that the program was „ineffective and poorly implemented.”

No sacred cow is spared in the report. Coburn notes that producing pennies has become too expensive for the government to justify. „The cost to produce a penny in 2012 is more than two times its actual value.” Noting that other developed countries have discontinued their smallest forms of currency, he writes, „the United States should follow suit and stop producing it.”

While the viral video of an Obama supporter claiming to have received a free phone may stretch credibility, the truth is more real than you think. There is in fact a federal program aimed at providing „free or reduced-price cell phone service,” as detailed in Wastebook. The federal government is empowered to provide universal telecommunications service to Americans, and have started using cell phones rather than landlines as a means of accomplishing that.

Source: Wastebook

The cell phone program, called Lifeline, has exploded in recent years. The Lifeline program now costs taxpayers $1.5 billion annually and subsidizes the cell phone service of 16.5 million Americans – and a survey found that almost ten percent of all enrollees should not even be eligible for the program.

The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 to fund a study done by the University of Washington and Cornell University’s to measure „gaydar” – the ability of people to identify sexual orientation merely by appearance. The researchers confirmed that „gaydar” exists, writing that participants were about 60% accurate when attempting to identify sexual orientation by appearance.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.