SEIU: In 2006 they wanted 2m, Now they want 8m Illegal Immigrants to become Voters

SEIU Vice President, Eliseo Medina, 2009

The SEIU is one of the largest unions in the states, claiming 2.2m members. On June 2, 2009 the Vice President of the SEIU addressed the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. For almost a year the video languished in the SEIU's Youtube channel, until Kiwi blogger Trevor Loudon, following a lead, came across the video and reposted a segment of it on Youtube. In the incriminating video which is now going viral, Medina states,

"Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants, that we'll expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future... When you are in the middle of a fight for your life you will remember who was there with you. And immigrants count on progressives to be able to do that.
Number two: We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters who care about ...... and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."

Medina's support for immigration reform is shamelessly and blatantly based largely upon his desire for the illegal (mainly Latino) immigrants to become progressive (Democrat) voters. Prima Facie he has claimed that these people need a voice so that their rights will be upheld, and that does even sound somewhat admirable. But when in the next breath he estimates that 8 million of the 12 million new citizens will become progressive voters, his agenda just sickens you. Trevor has blogged on Obama's socialist advisers pushing for immigration reform, and their motivation behind it in his ObamaFile 95.

SEIU Vice President, Eliseo Medina, 2006

This is nothing new. In 2006 Medina addressed the Social Economic Justice Forum where he made the following statement,

"To build the power to win, we need to massively increase civic participation and voter education. Imagine... Imagine the kind of difference we could make in 2008 if we had 2 million voters go to the polls with us. Imagine... if we had 2 million new and current citizens who not only will register to vote in 2008 but actually turn out on election day.

It's the same message - three years ago, before the 2008 election in which the Democrats narrowly took power. And three years ago the SEIU's goal was 2 million illegal immigrants becoming Democrat voters. But now, in 2010 as we approach the mid-term elections and the 2012 general elections, here's one of the largest unions in the States seeking to gain not 2 million but 8 million additional progressive voters. Do they have no shame?

When you consider that SEIU President, Andy Stern topped the list of Whitehouse visitors with 22 visits to the President's home between Jan. and July 2009, and then bring to mind Medina's comments on behalf of the union, you have to ask yourself what is going on.

Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy

Larry Baldock of The Kiwi Party

The StarStuddedSuperStep blog will be following the progress of the Campaign for Democracy, bringing updates to our readers and visitors. Background to the campaign, details on those behind it, and further information will be presented in future Referendum Files. Our readers from New Zealand will be aware of the apparantly unsuccessful citizens initiated referendum to overturn the Anti-Smacking Law. The man behind the petition for that referendum, Larry Baldock has responded to the outcome of that referendum, with a new petition for a citizens initiated referendum on the question,

“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”

The implications of this question will be discussed in later posts, but there's a quick summary.

On 28 Jan 2009, an ally of the Campaign for Democracy, Better Democracy NZ published an article in which they reproduced a letter from Larry Baldock to his supporters. An excerpt from the letter follows,

The results were very encouraging with 500 signing the petition in 3 hrs on their way in to the BBB event. Considering there has been very little publicity as yet about the new petition we found that approx 7-8 out of ten were prepared to sign...

The letter states that 7-8 out of ten people were prepared to sign. I can't challenge this figure as I have no first-hand knowledge of what took place, however I can say that, having collected approximately 10,000 signatures myself on the last petition, that 75% is a very high ratio. Whether this figure relates to the number of people who made contact with the campaigners, and subsequently signed, or the number of people walking past who came over and signed, it is still an unusually high ratio - particularly given the lack of publicity, as Baldock commented.

...The conversation generally went like this.

Campaigner: "Will you sign our petition Sir/Maam?"
Passer by: "What's it about?"
Campaigner: "Making referenda binding upon parliament. Do you remember the anti-smacking referendum last year when 87% said no and Parliament has ignored it?"
Passer by: "Sure do. It was ridiculous. What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!"
Campaigner: "Exactly, that's why we must now collect signatures for another one to make Parliament listen."
Passer by: "Sure I agree with that, where do I sign?"

The example of the typical conversation outlined in the letter is astounding. The passer by asks, "What's the point of having a referendum if they are going to ignore it!", to which the campaigner agrees and then encourages them to go ahead and take part in the referendum anyway. There is no progression of logic here, simply a desire to rectify the government's shameful rejection of the results of the last non-binding referendum - by having another non-binding referendum.

I lol'd

I have a number of serious posts waiting to be written but in the mean time, how about a pretty decent joke about Aunty Karen...

The teacher gave her fifth-grade class an assignment: get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it.

The next day the kids came back and one by one began to tell their stories.

Ashley said, "My father's a farmer, and we have a lot of egg-laying hens. One time we were taking our eggs to market in a basket on the front seat of the car when we hit a big bump in the road and all the eggs went flying and broke and made a mess."

"What's the moral of the story?" asked the teacher.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket!"

"Very good," said the teacher.

Next little Sarah raised her hand and said, "Our family are farmers too. But we raise chickens for the meat market. We had a dozen eggs one time, but when they hatched we only got ten live chicks, and the moral to this story is, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.'"

"That was a fine story, Sarah. Michael, do you have a story to share?"

"Yes, my daddy told me this story about my Aunt Karen. Aunt Karen was a flight engineer in the Gulf War and her plane was hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory, and all she had was a bottle of whiskey, a machine gun, and a machete. She drank the whiskey on the way down so it wouldn't break and then she landed right in the middle of a hundred enemy troops. She killed seventy of them with the machine gun until she ran out of bullets. Then she killed twenty more with the machete until the blade broke. Then she killed the last ten with her bare hands."

"Good heavens," said the horrified teacher, "what kind of moral did your daddy tell you from that horrible story?"

"Stay away from Aunt Karen when she's been drinking!"

Massachusetts Special Election Holds the US in the Balance

On Tuesday Bay Staters will decide on the new Massachusetts representative in the U.S. Senate, replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the strongly blue state. Republican candidate Scott Brown has pledged to be the 41st vote against the Health Care bill while Democrats candidate Martha Coakley has stated she will be the 60th vote for the Senate version of the bill. If the Democrats lose Massachusetts it won't just put the health care bill on shaky ground, but will serve as a clear indicator that the common people are unhappy with the current regime. A Republican victory will bode badly for the Democrats as they gear up for the mid-term elections in November this year. Libertarian Joseph Kennedy is running as a distant third, and while he may take some votes away from both of the major candidates, he poses no real threat. Let's look at the two main candidates...

Scott Brown (Republican)

SEIU members showing support for Republican Scott Brown

Scott Brown is the Republican candidate in the race for the Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate. While he is far preferable to his opponent Martha Coakley as you will read below, he is not quite an ideal representative. Massachusetts members of the 2.1 million strong SEIU union have been expressing their support for Brown while the head office of the union funded a $665,000 TV attack ad against the Republican.

Torture: The Democrats are at his throat for his assertion that waterboarding is not torture, and that he supports it as an advanced interrogation technique. However waterboarding is clearly a form of torture as Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has asserted.

Pro-life: Brown is a pro-life politician who has initiated and supported several incremental steps forward to improving the rights of pre-born children. While he has consistently voted for abortion to remain legal, he has got behind some strongly pro-life bills and pro-life groups have also got behind him. Brown's abortion voting record is available here.

Martha Coakley (Democrats)
Coakley is the current Attorney General of Massachusetts and has gone from being the obvious choice to underdog in the Massachusetts race due to a number of avoidable mistakes during the campaign as well as things she's done in the past which shine badly on her now. GOP strategist Jordan Gehrke reported in the National Review that Coakley said at a 12 January fundraiser, "If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats ... Every Democrat will have a competitive race..." and also that she said that health care reform is riding on the Massachusetts race and that her loss would be the beginning of a "disaster".

Partial-Birth Abortion: In 2007 she expressed her support for the repealing of the partial birth abortion ban. Partial birth abortion is the barbaric process whereby the abortionist kills the viable fetus when only its head remains inside the mother. When the bill to make partial-birth abortions permissible failed, Coakley stated that this was tragic, also complaining that those in the court hearing had been influenced by the realistic description of what a partial-birth abortion entails.

"The ramifications, long and short term, of this tragic decision are immense. Women have again been relegated to second-class citizens, after decades of efforts to foster equality."

With her strong feminist, pro-abortion stance, Coakley has won the support of pro-abortion groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and Emily's List (which donated $314,000).

----------------------

As at 7pm Monday night in the States, respected polling company, Five Thirty Eight gives Martha Coakley just a 25 percent chance of prevailing on Tuesday. It appears that rather than rallying at this news, that Coakley's support is steadily dropping off. Here's hoping that Republicans, Independents, disillusioned Democrats and other swing-voters will be out in their droves on Tuesday, voting for a real change in the Obama agenda. Voting in the special election starts at 7am on Tuesday Jan. 19 (today), with polling booths closing at 8pm.

</Blogger>

Heading down to Waihola for a week to help out at a boy's camp run down there by Christian Youth Camps. Should be a great opportunity for all involved, and am looking forward to a week without a computer screen anywhere in sight. I helped out at the same camp two years ago and here's what happened. See y'all later.

Kia Kaha

Pro-Abortion Feminists Outraged at Optional Ultrasound

Utah House of Representatives Republican, Carl Wimmer

Andrew Jenkins, a writer at the Feminists for Choice Death blog and "a self-proclaimed queer feminist" is having kittens. He is upset by the introduction of a bill set to be debated in early 2010, into the Utah House of Representatives by Republican Representative Carl Wimmer. Wimmer is a strongly conservative politician with a mission to chip away at Roe v. Wade which he correctly states has legalised "no reason" abortion in the United States. In 2009 Wimmer sponsored two incrementally pro-life bills. The first, HB222 was entitled "The Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act" and requires that doctors who are going to commit an abortion on a child must inform the mother that the child may feel pain, and requires that the doctor offer an anesthetic to alleviate the pain for the foetus. The second bill Wimmer co-sponsored established in law that an unlawful abortion was the equivalent of a 2nd degree homicide. While being strongly pro-life, Wimmer justly supports permission of abortions in extreme cases only. Utah has a population of 2.7 million and, as a largely conservative state, lays claim to a relatively low total of 4,000 abortions being committed each year out of 3 abortion mills. Low perhaps, but still approximately 4,000 too many abortions and 3 too many abortion clinics. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform states that only 1% of abortions occur because of rape or incest, 6% occur because of potential possible health problems while the vast majority, 93% are committed for social reasons - where it is claimed that an abortion will improve the future of the mother or remove an "inevitable future of pain and poverty" for the foetus.

The latest pro-life bill introduced by Wimmer would require that abortionists must provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with an optional detailed description of what is on the screen. The Salt Lake Tribune explains the situation,

Current law says women planning abortions must be told they have the right to view an ultrasound. Wimmer's changes go further and say that if an ultrasound is performed, the images must be displayed so that the woman can see them, if she wants. And, if she desires, the person performing the ultrasound must provide a "detailed description" of what is on the screen, including the dimensions of the fetus, description of its heart and presence of other organs and external body parts.

Naturally pro-abortion feminists and those with a vested interest in the continuation of liberal abortion laws are fuming. Wimmer correctly summarises their motivation,

"They're in the abortion market to make money. The more ultrasounds they show, the fewer abortions they're going to be able to do."

Wimmer drafted the bill with the national anti-abortion organization, Americans United for Life. AUL states that by showing the mother an image of her pre-born child, a bond will be established which leads to the woman no longer feeling ambivalence towards the life growing within her. This phenomena is pretty straight-forward. Until a mother sees or touches her child - at any stage in his/her development, the level of responsiblity or love which she feels for the child will be significantly lower than when she does see and hold her child. However Andrew Jenkins of Feminsts for Death lashes out at Wimmer for his part in "making the already difficult decision to have an abortion even harder".

"Unfortunately for women in the state of Utah, Wimmer is pushing for more invasive restrictions that would dramatically challenge a women’s right to choice. Rep. Carl Wimmer’s bill would require that a doctor provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with a detailed description of what is on the screen. Although this so-called attempt at establishing a “bond” between a mother and her fetus is still optional, the very idea of this legislation is cloaked in anti-choice language that views women as agentless and incapable of coming to their own conclusions about what is best for their bodies and their lives. Despite the fact that this bill remains seemingly optional for women seeking an abortion, it is most certainly a part of a larger anti-choice agenda to coerce women out of choosing abortion."

Jenkins is incorrect to state that doctors will be required to provide the image and a detailed description, in fact he contradicts himself in the next sentence when he acknowledges that these procedural changes will be optional with the woman determining what she does/does not wish to know about her pre-born child, or the procedure which will tear it to pieces, forcefully sucking it out of her body through a hose. He comments that, "Regardless of how difficult of a decision it may be, it remains a decision that each woman should have the autonomous right to make on her own." However, ironically - and this is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, he is absolutely opposed to women being given the option of a wider range of information being made available to them to allow them to make a better-informed choice.

New Abortion Law in Oklahoma Under Fire

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed an amendment to the state's abortion law known as HB-1595 on 13 May 09. The law passed through the Oklahoma Senate on 15 May, and was scheduled to come into force on 1 November 09. Read the act here. The amendment served to establish several crucial changes to the abortion law. Firstly, prohibiting an abortion from being committed soley on account of the sex of the pre-born child. Secondly a form was set out in the Act (pages 8-17) with the requirement that abortionists fill the form out for each abortion committed, with the information being returned to the State Department of Health.

Ban of Sex-Selective Abortions
Declaring a ban on sex-selective abortions, Section 2. A. of the revised law states,

"No person shall knowingly or recklessly perform or attempt to perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant female is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child..."

Jill Stanek commented in May that this was "the first sex-selection abortion ban to pass in the country". And the National Right to Life Committee was alluding to the gender-disbalance situation in China when it praised the law-change saying, "All over the world, millions of females are missing due to sex selection abortions". Of course the pro-abortion lobby hate this aspect of the abortion debate, because they claim that they are "pro-choice", and that abortion is all about "a woman's right to choose". They believe that the rights of the foetus are either non-existant, or so inferior to those of the mother that they are negligible. When confronted with the fact that abortion is sometimes used (legally) for the purpose of eugenics, they often don't know where to look. Feminists for Choice were all over the place,

"Now, i am just against sexism, whether in the womb or not, as anyone else, and whether you believe that gender is an appropriate reason to terminate a pregnancy or not, the real problem lies in the government stepping in and placing restrictions on the “right” reasons for a woman to seek an abortion."

Get that? They are opposed to sexism and yet they believe that mothers should have the right to be sexist when determining the fate of their pre-born child. However if abortion is simply about the rights of women to control their own bodies and the rights of the foetus are so insignificant as not to come into any meaningful consideration, then what the heck is the problem with sex-selective abortions? It will make your pro-abortion friend very uncomfortable and attempting to change the direction of the conversation. It is true that mothers will be able to keep quiet about their wish to abort their child on the grounds of its sex and instead give another legally acceptable reason for proceeding with an abortion. Nonetheless, this law-change is a positive step forward, as it enshrines in law the right of the pre-born child to not be killed for a reason based purely upon its sex.

Individual Abortion form (click here to view PDF)

Abortion Details Form & Report
The second major change to Oklahoma's abortion law is the requirement for women seeking an abortion to fill out a questionnaire. Two Oklahoma women, Wanda Jo Stapleton and Martha Hardwick in association with The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a legal challenge against the law on September 29, arguing that it violated the state’s single-subject rule which requires laws only address one topic at a time. The stated reason for opposing the law is just a convenient technicality. The real reason that the pro-abortion lobby are seeking for the overturn of the law is that it implements restrictions on abortion provision and greater transparency in terms of abortion statistics reporting. Pro-Choice of Oklahoma challenged the new law primarily complaining that the survey would compromise women's privacy, commenting,

"The reporting requirements of HB 1595 are so extensive that the reports could reveal the names of physicians and patients who perform or receive abortions in small towns..."

However this is extremely unlikely as the law comments on this scenario. It makes it clear that in situations where the information released could lead to identification of specific mothers, that the range of the information would be cut down to a level sufficient to remove this possibility in Section 5. E.,

"The State Department of Health will take care to ensure that none of the information included in its public reports could reasonably lead to the identification of any individual female..."

Feminists for Death Choice complain, "the website will cost upwards of $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year This is an extravagent cost for a state that is already suffering a budget crisis." To put that expense in perspective, it is estimated that the legal costs for a death penalty case from indictment to execution are $1.2 million. The $250,000 expense to increase transparency in abortions committed that the pro-death lobby are waving about is less than a quarter of the expense of the US Govt. killing just one of its citizens. This is compared with the cost of creating and maintaining a data-set for the killing of aproximately 7,000 pre-born Oklahoma babies each year.

Law temporarily blocked
On 18 December 09 the Oklahoma County District Court temporarily blocked enforcement the new law until the case is heard on 19 February 2010. It had originally been scheduled to come into force on 1 November 09. This is a temporary victory for the pro-abortion lobby. If the law is thrown out on this technicality it will be able to be re-introduced following the correct protocol - which would mean that the four individual aspects covered in the bill would be split up into four separate bills and passed through the House in Oklahoma again. Of course this will all cost extra tax-payer's money, and I thought it was the well-meaning pro-abortion lobby who were so concerned about the "unlawful expenditure of public funds"...

Oklahoma is shining the light of freedom and justice, leading the way forward for the other 49 states to follow. Let's hope this pro-life change to their abortion law will be upheld, and just another step forward in the fight for the right to life of Oklahoma's most innocent and helpless citizens, it's pre-born children.