Democrats: Minimum Wage is "Basic Fairness"

Mitch Stewart, Director of the Democrats' "grassroots" campaign arm, Organizing for America just sent out an email update. As usual, he warns us of the evil "corporations and special interests".

"Republican candidates for Congress are now saying they want to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal minimum wage," he complains. "They're talking about ending a law that protects American workers from unreasonably low wages. It's a basic fairness that some of the people who want to control Congress simply don't understand -- Republicans like Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska.

Minimum wage is far from being a "basic fairness that some Republicans simply don't understand". Condemning "disbelievers" on grounds that they "simply don't understand it" is laughable. The minimum wage exists for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth - something that has become one of the Democrats' most dearly loved principles. Below is a summary of the policy's problems:

• Two people wishing to make a contract are prohibited from doing so. For instance, if someone is searching for a job, and is willing to work for $5/hr, and a business owner is willing to pay him this, the contract cannot proceed because the minimum wage is $12.75/hr (here in New Zealand).
• Young people - historically preferable for low-skilled jobs will find it harder to gain employment. Because with the abolition of the youth wage, employers can hire more experienced workers for the same hourly rate.
• Minimum wage prevents employers from rewarding outstanding employees, because it is designed to cut down the "tall poppies". It achieves this by promoting mediocrity. No longer can employers simply pay staff based on their skills or work ethic. Instead they are forced to pay lower-quality employees at a higher rate than their market value. And the result of this is that the higher-quality employees are paid less than their market value.
• Following on from this: hard-working employees will find it harder to gain a pay-rise as a reward for their effort, as they were either a) started off at their job at an hourly rate above their market value, or b) their employer cannot afford to give a pay rise as he is paying other staff at a rate above their market value.
• Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing business expenses for employers, thus causing them to find ways of hiring fewer staff to make up for the fact that they are paying above market value for a number of their employees.
• Minimum wage distorts the balance in the market, as it causes the value of resources (i.e. man-hours) to be artificially raised or lowered.

The minimum wage should be abolished, giving individuals freedom to enter into any form of employment contract that they wish. This policy is unpopular, even in Conservative circles, however it is a sound "small government" liberal policy, while the alternative is out and out Socialism.

Republicans to Campaign on Federal Abortion Funding?

Just heard from the Manhattan Declaration project that,

So many of you emailed the Republican House leader's office last week urging the party not to backtrack on its commitment to life, liberty and marriage that you brought the email servers down. We have just been informed that the Republican leadership WILL now include references to marriage and federal funding of abortion in their election agenda.

This is excellent news. However it will remain to be seen if the Grand Old Party will run with a decent pro-life platform, or if they'll make either promises they intend not to keep, or make promises that offer no genuine improvement to the problem of abortion in the United States.

Planned Parenthood and ACLU Gang Up on Pro-Lifers in Nevada

When did "women's choice" become repression of the First Amendment protected freedom of speech in the United States?

"A ballot initiative by human rights group Personhood Nevada has been thwarted by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and local Judge James Russell. On Friday, January 8, Judge Russell ruled that the fourteen word amendment did not encompass a single subject, although it is comprised of merely a handful of words and one of the most succinct ever to be filed in that State.

The proposed amendment reads, “In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.” The Judge’s decision declares that the people of Nevada are not entitled to vote on this matter, and that the State’s very own policies and procedures to amend the Constitution through ballot initiatives should not be applied to this specific civil rights amendment.

Judge Russell was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they're voting on. There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative."

Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia-Jones was disturbed by the Judge’s comments. "Judge Russell is being disingenuous," he remarked. “There is a very simple way for the voter to understand the effect of the initiative, namely, read the 200 word description that immediately follows the 14 word ballot text. That 200 word description includes: ‘This amendment codifies the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.’ Judge Russell is abusing his power and jumping the gun by prejudging the effect of the law."

The good news though, is that Planned Parenthood and their Labour union ally, the American Civl Liberties Union will fail, because in 2008...

"Planned Parenthood sued to prevent the Colorado ballot initiative from moving forward, claiming that it was not a single subject issue, and lost the lawsuit. The initiative, although longer than the Nevada initiative, was found to be a single subject and allowed to proceed."

Olaf Vancura, President of Personhood Nevada commented, "We are determined that no matter how long it takes, we will not be silenced. The personhood petition will be approved, and we will protect all human life in the state of Nevada.”

And back in New Zealand...
I am now getting used to the underhanded tactics of pro-abortion advocates. Instead of debating the issue of abortion, they so often either attack pro-lifers (with the ad hominem fallacy), or attack pro-lifer's freedom to speak. An example of the latter is currently unfolding on the campus at the University of Auckland, where the feminists and pro-abortion advocates on campus are joining forces to shut down the pro-life group that has recently been founded there. A Facebook group entitled
Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland has been set up. The group includes members such as ALRANZ spokesperson Alison McCulloch and AUSA Women's Rights Officer, Soraiya Daud. This group has made the following defamatory and untrue statement about Prolife Auckland:

"They are a hate group who accuse people who have obtained abortions or have helped people obtain abortions as murderers. University should be a safe place. It will not be if they affiliate."

Pro-life leader Brendan Malone has covered this at his blog here and here. While Prolife Auckland has now successfully affiliated with the Students' Association, the pro-abortion activists on and off campus continue to fight - not their message, but their right to exist on Campus.

Are Tea Partiers Principled?

The former Govenor of New Mexico, and Honorary Chairman of the OUR America Initiative writes, warning of misplaced enthusiasm in supporting politicians who claim to stand with the Tea Party movement on issues such as small government and lower tax. Below is an excerpt from his article...

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.

Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality.

While someone may have a good personality, a personality that seems conservative, down-to-earth, and middle-American; while a politician on stage might say everything you agree with and believe deep down in your heart; while that person may strongly affirm all of your principles… he or she might not really believe in them.

Is it so hard to think that a politician might capitalize on the tea party movement by telling us what we want to hear?... (Continue Reading)

Here's a video introducing Our America...

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.

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.

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.

You Know You're Doing Something Right When...

Keith Mason of Personhood USA

Congratulations to Personhood USA on becoming a nominee for the The National Abortion Rights Action League's 2009 Hall of Shame. In their description of the threat Personhood USA poses to the pro-abortion movement, NARAL write,

The group behind the anti-choice "personhood" measures, Personhood USA, exists solely to establish legal rights for fertilized eggs and trigger legal battles over abortion that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only could the strategy outlaw abortion, but it could even threaten birth control, stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization. Working to outlaw abortion makes Personhood USA a strong candidate for Hall of Shame of the year.

Co-founder of Personhood USA, Keith Mason responded “We at Personhood USA are honored to be considered one of the top four threats to abortion in America”. Personhood USA is just one year old, but in this time has launched efforts in over 30 states, with petitions currently circulating in seven states. Keith continued,

The bottom line is that NARAL exists to promote the killing of innocent children. Even their use of the term ‘fertilized egg’ is a misnomer – scientifically, once a human egg is fertilized it is no longer an egg, but a new individual with his or her own DNA. It’s clear that to be on their ‘Hall of Shame’ list is not a bad thing.”

Well done Personhood USA, keep it up.

I Wish the Whole World Could See

"...I wish the whole World could see abortion the way this naive 17yr old saw abortion" - Jason Jones

Jones yesterday launched a new campaign, IAmWholeLife.com with spokesperson Eduardo Verastegui (from the movie Bella), responding to the anti-life sentiments of US politicians who are supporting the Health Care Bill. The bill, without the Stupak/Nelson language will lead to the largest expansion of abortion in the States since Roe vs. Wade.

hat tip: Jill Stanek

Health Care Bill Shaky as Abortion Amendment Defeated

Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson's amendment to remove Federal funding for abortions from the Health Care Bill was defeated with 54 votes against, 45 for in the Senate on Tuesday. However as Katie Connolly says, what will matter most is not Tuesday's Senate debate, but rather where the Nelson/Stupak language ends up in the reconciliation process. It was sponsor of the original bill, Bart Stupak who himself said, “I don’t think we will prevail in the Senate.”

Politico.com reports on Nelson's threat of filibustering if sufficient changes are not made to the bill when he said on 19 Nov that he would seek to prevent health reform from moving to final passage if restrictions on federal funding for abortion weren’t tightened during the amendment process. He added, “there are a lot of other things that could keep me from supporting it in the end as well.”

With 51% of US Citizens now declaring themselves to be pro-life in the recent Gallup poll, it is important that they now put pressure on their Senators to oppose the passing of the Bill unless significant alterations are made regarding the funding of abortions in health insurance policies, according to the language found in the Stupak/Nelson amendments. Because if the Bill does get through in its current state, health-insurance policies which contain federal funding for abortion coverage will be permitted to be sold. The jist of the Stupak/Nelson amendment to the bill then, is that abortion insurance would be permitted as a part of a complete health-insurance plan, but only if that plan did not receive partial funding through Medicare, the United States equivalent to ACC.

New Zealand currently has 100% tax-payer funded abortions for all citizens and permanent residents. This means that a portion of every taxed dollar Kiwis earn goes towards the 18,000 abortions committed in New Zealand every year. Let's hope that the US is able to avoid sinking down to this deplorable level of government endorsed and funded injustice, this silent holocaust.

Amendment Removing Abortion from US Healthcare Bill Passed

This is huge news. The Stupak/Pitts amendment which ensures that federal funding for abortion will be kept out of the HealthCare Bill has passed, 240-194 in the House of Congress in the United States.

Following the surprise move by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote on the amendment, LifeNews.com reported comments on the amendment made by Douglas Johnson, the director of the National Right to Life Committee,

"This will be one of the most important roll call votes that U.S. House members ever casts on a pro-life issue," he said. "Any lawmaker who votes against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is, in effect, voting in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds."

On Saturday evening, 64 Democrats voted with 176 Republicans to support the amendment to the bill. CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards is understandably quite upset at this outcome, claiming that the new bill will,

"restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money."

However this is not the case as Jill Stanek explained on Saturday before the vote,

This amendment keeps the status quo. It is identical to the current federal employees' insurance plan, which does not cover abortion. Currently, if a pregnant mother who works for the federal government wants to abort, she can do so with her own money.

Under the Stupak/Pitts amendment any low-income pregnant mother who would get her insurance through the government would have to do to the same. Or if she has a private insurance plan that is subsidized by the federal government, that private company could not pay for her abortion.

This is a massive victory for pro-lifers in the States. The Healthcare Reform Bill may have passed through Congress, however it has done so without cover being provided for abortions. David Brody at the Christian Broadcasting Network writes,

"if you just heard a loud thud, well that was pro-choice liberals in the House plopping down in their seats dumbfounded and frustrated as can be. Not only does their healthcare reform bill not contain a "robust" public option but it now contains this new pro-life language. This is a horrible turn of events for House liberals. You can be sure they'll be pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to strip this language out in conference (if the bill makes it that far) but for now this vote tonight is something pro-choice liberals will lose some sleep over."

New Zealand already has government-funded abortions for all permanent residents and citizens. To our shame, we are absolutely complacent about this, not even blinking when being told that our tax-money funds this "core health service", abortion. These abortions are on demand and a large number of them are very likely being carried out in breach of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977 which states that abortion is illegal except in a very few circumstances. Pro-lifers in the US have a real fight on their hands to keep their country from slipping down the path of tax-payer funded child-killing as we have in New Zealand.

The Abortion of a Pro-Lifer

Jim (James Lawrence) Pouillon, 63, of Owosso

On 11 September 2009, Jim was murdered as he sat outside an abortion clinic, protesting the injustice being carrried out behind its doors as he had been doing for many years. The president of the pro-life group Jim was a member of described him as, "just a nice, elderly gentleman who was disabled, used an oxygen tank and wore leg braces." The murderer shot Jim several times to kill him - a comparatively quick and painless death when compared with the slow and brutal methods of killing unborn babies he was standing up for. Jim has saved many babies' lives and many women from the harm of abortion - but finally paid the ultimate price, something he had said he was prepared to do long before. Read more.

What a legend.

Motivation of Govt. Advertising Questioned

An article over at MercartorNet takes a look at Government advertising in the States - is it aimed at informing, or controlling?

Mornings on radio in the United States are filled with advertising. From the time we wake up until the time we fall asleep, it seems the advertising never ends. The jingles, catchy and appealing, sometimes want you to adopt a child or to pony up for National Parks. Sometimes they pressure you to wear a seat belt or to use a booster seat (4.9 is the magic age for using a booster seat -- according to the ad brought to us by the Department of Transportation). For its part, the Department of Health and Human Services wants us to adopt a teen. And so on, and so on…

Of course, they are all good ads with clever jingles and cute lines. At least they seem that way the first few times you hear them. And, obviously, listening to such ads is the price we pay for hearing the news or the music, or whatever the radio is offering. What is surprising, though, is the reversal that has taken place in radio sponsorship. Once the domain of private enterprise, it is now increasingly becoming the voice of government. Our own tax money is put to work to convince us of something politicians and bureaucrats think we ought to do...

...Once again, the messages do promote good causes. We all agree that people can eat too much or guzzle too much gas. And it is certainly a good thing to adopt a teen. But, what are the ads really selling? Why should citizens be urged to use more services which make them more dependent on Uber government? What is the real goal? To have us grateful for all the hovering government? Is this an effort to have federal and state governments dispense all goodies to a grateful populace? To me, that type of government has an overreaching, imperial ring, like the rule of the Caesars or Louis XVI or Czarist Russia.

Click here to continue reading.

Obama's "Science Czar" is a Dangerous Man

An excerpt from my latest post at JillStanek.com...

In his weekly address late in December 2008, President Obama announced that he had chosen Dr. John Holdren to be his assistant for Science and Technology (often referred to as the science czar), and Dr. Holdren was instated to the position in March.

Unsurprisingly, Obama neglected to make reference to Holdren's extremist views on population control and instead focused on his expertise in relation to "the growing threat of climate change". FrontPageMag.com sums up the key concerns that many are raising about Holdren...

Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the US as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the US standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity.

Let's take a closer look at this. Obama was the only senator who voted against and spoke against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in the IL State Senate. He is without doubt the most anti-life president in history, so is it any surprise that he should select a science advisor who is known to have extreme pro-abortion views?

Click here to continue reading.

Attack of the Clones

screenshot from Starwars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

We thought human-cloning was years away... just like living on the moon would not eventuate for many years.  US reproductive scientist Dr. Panayiotis Zavo claims to have cloned 14 human embryos, implanting 11 of them in 4 women - but as yet he has not been successful, and the pregnancies have failed.  Below is an excerpt from the article at LifeSiteNews.com,

"There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen," Dr. Zavos said.

"If we intensify our efforts, we can have a cloned baby within a year or two," he said. In 2004, Dr. Zavos claimed to have transferred a cloned human embryo into a woman's womb, but did not produce evidence at the time to back up the claim.

A segment of the film depicting the recent procedures made available to the press shows Dr. Zavos, dressed in surgical scrubs and sitting at a microscope, interspersed with photos of what appear to be cells. The footage featured in a documentary aired Wednesday on the Discovery Channel in Britain.

"We managed to write chapter one," Zavos said. "Chapter two, we will have a child a parent can take home and raise as a cloned child."

Agence France Presse reported that the experiment was carried out in a secret location in the Middle East to avoid legislation in the US that bans "human cloning," that is, "reproductive cloning."

Ethicists and scientists were quick to condemn Zavos' claim, maintaining that cloned human embryos cannot be created "safely." The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued a statement calling attempts at "human cloning" unethical. The ASRM, however, in quoting a previous decision, employed the shorthand expression "human cloning" to mean only the creation of cloned embryos for purposes of reproduction, not the creation of human clones as such.

Cloning may be immoral, but what is more certain is that the research being done on cloning of embryos is definitely immoral. The number of very young unborn babies that these evil scientists are using and killing in their experiments is incredibly high, and absolutely unjustifiable.

hat-tip: SemperVita blog

"They Meant it for Evil but God used it for Good"

Alerted to Pastor Walter Hoye's imprisonment at JillStanek.com, I wrote a letter to him while he was incarcerated in Santa Rita jail, California. Hoye is a huge encouragement, and a shining example of what it means to be a man of conviction. Below is the first bit of the article at WorldMag.com. Be sure to continue reading...

For 19 days in March and April, Walter Hoye was locked in a cell with 29 other prisoners at the Santa Rita jail near Oakland, Calif. There were times when he wished he could have stayed longer.

When the metal door first clanged shut behind him on March 20, Hoye, 52, decided the space was really more of a cage than a cell. A metal grid penning in prisoners. Fifteen bunks lining two walls. Two toilets and a urinal for all 30 men, and a shower that inmates had gradually transformed into a pornographic shrine.

As Hoye made his way to an empty bunk, a few prisoners, mostly black and Latino, dogged his path. "You smuggle in any drugs, man?" one of them asked.

"No," Hoye said quietly.

Then the veteran inmates left him alone, he told me, except for "one of the brothers who was kind enough to help me make up my bed."

A few minutes later, another man walked over to Hoye's bunk and jabbed his finger at a newspaper he was holding. "This you?" he said, eyeing Hoye skeptically.

Hoye peered at the Oakland Tribune headline: "Anti-abortion pastor chooses jail."

"Yeah, that's me," he said.

In the next moment, the inmate was striding up and down the length of the cell, announcing, "Hey, he don't have to be here! He turned down probation! He doing straight time for what he believed in!"

Click here to continue reading...

Is Al Gore Converting Back to Pro-Life?

I have joined renowned pro-life commentary blog JillStanek.com as an intern. Here is my first post there...

This is the question many pro-choicers are asking, as revelations surface of Al Gore - former US VP and Nobel Peace Prize recipient - aligning himself with an adult stem cell research company.
Andy Coghlan at New Scientist writes:

Gore's venture capital company, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers is putting $20 million into a joint venture between iZumi Bio, a company in San Francisco, and the University of Kyoto where researcher Shinya Yamanaka discovered how to make [adult] iPS [induced pluripotent stem] cells in 2006. The aim is to produce treatments for degenerative conditions including Parkinson's Disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [Lou Gehrig's disease, which Stephen Hawking has].

By the same token, many pro-lifers are rethinking their relationship with Gore, viewing him as a potential new ally for the pro-life cause. However this is an unfounded conclusion. [JLS note: At the beginning of his political career, Gore was considered pro-life.]...

Click here to continue reading the article

Pro-Choice is Not

"He who defines wins" - the axiom of the founder of Vision Forum, Doug Phillips.  It is high time for the pro-life movement to adopt this maxim for itself.  Below is an excerpt from an email sent out by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood to its supporters,

President Obama's nominee for secretary of health and human services, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, is under attack from anti-choice extremists.  They want to block her confirmation, and they're doing everything they can to convince their allies in the Senate to play along.

The US Government is no better, with the Department of Homeland Security raising concerns about "white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion", in a report dated 7/04/09.

The US Government its subsidary, Planned Parenthood and the entire "pro-choice" contingent are scared of the pro-life movement, and for good reason. Pro-lifers are correct, and they know that - but because they don't have any answers, they are turning in desperation to labelling us - and then condemning us for that label.

Pro-lifers do not need to stoop to such levels. However we can - and should call a spade a spade. Pro-choice is not. If the group who believe in the rights of unborn babies are pro-life, then the group who do not belive in the rights of the unborn are pro-death. Pro-lifers are all for informed choice - we believe that in a pregnancy, there are two choices to consider. The choice of the baby (to live), and the choice of the mother (to have the abortion or not).

To be genuinely pro-choice, one would need to respect not only the choice of the mother, but also the choice of the baby. Anyone who promotes the right of the mother's choice alone is not pro-choice, but pro-death.

Click here for Jill Stanek's comments on this issue.
Click here for my sister Lydia's take on it. She also examines the opposition of the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Obama's secretary of health.

Volition

Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Volition (Doorpost Finalist 2008) presents a realistic insight into the moral choices faced by men in three unique situations in the last century. Slavery in the United States, the Jewish Holocaust and Abortion.

This cinematically pleasing 15 minute independent film is an inspiration for everyone, but especially as a challenge to the men of my generation; to stand up and be men.

Do not watch this film if you feel unable to handle the truth of its message.