Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by         Right Thinking

                                                                           Conservative Thought and Commentary

HEADLINES:      September 6 - Huge Step Taken by Europe’s Bank to Abate a Crisis       September 6 - U.S. policy on China sees little progress       September 6 - State Department drops Maoists from terrorist watch list       September 6 - Venezuela Holds U.S. Vessel And Crew On Suspicion Of Arms Trafficking       September 5 - DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform       September 5 - Powerful quake hits Costa Rica      

Friday, July 31, 2009

The Beer Summit and Lessons Learned

Yesterday evening's Beer Summit between African-American professor Henry Louis Gates, European-American Sergeant James Crowley, African/European-American President Barack Hussein Obama, and an unexpected Summit attendee, European-American Vice President Joe Biden, was a teachable moment. In fact, I am in awe at the abilities of both Professor Gates and President Obama to create such a teachable moment.

We all know that racism is still rampant in this country. The fact that we now have a black, er, African-American... no, sorry, an African/European-American President, certainly does not mean that European-American people are no longer racist. After all, you have to remember that only 43 percent of all European-American voters voted for Mr. Obama, so 57 percent of them are clearly still racist. Also remember that a full 4 percent of African-American voters voted for the extremely Caucasian John McCain, clearly proving that African-Americans thoughtfully voted for the candidate they believed would do the best job, regardless of race.

In this environment of blatant racism of European-Americans toward African-Americans, we all need a lesson in race relations. Fortunately for us, Professor Gates, who just happens to be the director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University, and President Obama, who has written and spoken extensively on race, wisely recognized the opportunity to create just the teachable moment we all needed.

When Gates was seen forcing his way into his own home because the door was jammed, a neighbor, not recognizing that it was Gates, did the neighborly thing and called the police. Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department responded to the call. When Crowley arrived on the scene, he asked Gates for identification - nothing unusual there, pretty routine, no teachable moment so far. However, Professor Gates could sense what only a Harvard educator would have the ability to sense: the possibility of a teachable moment.

Gates quickly sprang into action by refusing Sgt. Crowley's request for identification. When Crowley informed Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates asked, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" Gates became belligerent toward Crowley and was eventually arrested for disorderly conduct. The groundwork for the teachable moment had been developed.

When President Obama was later asked for his comments on the Gates arrest, he almost destroyed the developing teachable moment by admitting that he didn't have all the facts. He quickly recovered, however, by stating that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly." We now had a fully developed teachable moment.

Yesterday evening's Beer Summit was the culmination of the lessons that we have all learned through this teachable moment created by the non-racist African-American Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the equally non-racist African/European-American President Barack Hussein Obama. So what are those lessons? Certainly there are many, but as I see it, here are the main three.

1. If you are a black person - I mean an African-American person - and you are stopped by the police, start loudly proclaiming that the officer is a racist and that he or she is only stopping you because you are an African-American person. If you do this, you will get to have a beer with the President.

2. If you are a European-American police officer, and you are called to investigate any possible violation of the law, and you see that the suspect is an African-American person, you have a difficult decision to make. If you do your job and investigate as you should, you will be called stupid by the President. If that doesn't bother you, however, go ahead and investigate, because after being called stupid by the President, you'll get to go have a beer with him.

3. If you see someone who appears to be breaking into a neighbor's home, make sure you find out that person's race before you decide whether or not to call the police. If you find out that the person is a European-American, go ahead and call the police. If you find out that the person is an African-American, do NOT call the police. Everyone will know that you are a racist, and you will NOT get to have beer with the President.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Words of our Founding Fathers: Echoed by Palin, Contradicted by Obama

As I was reading the transcript of Sarah Palin's farewell speech made in Alaska on Sunday, these words, in particular, stood out to me:

Be wary of accepting government largess. It doesn't come free, and often, accepting it takes away everything that is free; melting into Washington's powerful "care-taking" arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us, and that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free.
Palin's admonition against the enticement of government generosity reflected, I thought, the principles upon which this country was founded, so I did some quick research into the words of some of our county's founding fathers.

Here are some examples of what I found:

The class of citizens who provide at once their own food and their own raiment, may be viewed as the most truly independent and happy. They are more: they are the best basis of public liberty, and the strongest bulwark of public safety. It follows, that the greater the proportion of this class to the whole society, the more free, the more independent, and the more happy must be the society itself.
                                                                                                    -James Madison, March 3, 1792

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled [sic] much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
                                                                                                    -Ben Franklin, November 1776
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
                                                                                                    -Thomas Jefferson, April 6, 1816

As I read the above Jefferson quote, it occurred to me that while his words are echoed in the words of Sarah Palin, they are contradicted in these words:

It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
                                                                                                    -Barack Obama, October 12, 2008

Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of change, and he's delivering on that promise. Unfortunately, the change that he's delivering is changing our country into something that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

A Look Behind Ginsburg's Words

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with The New York Times, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

You don’t often hear abortion advocates admit the desire to limit the population of those “that we don’t want to have too many of,” so it’s very surprising that Ginsburg said this, but it should come as no surprise that she thought it.

The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921, and in 1942 it was renamed Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. Margaret Sanger was a birth control activist and proponent of negative eugenics, the belief in improving humanity by discouraging or preventing reproduction by those deemed to be unfit or in some way defective.

Sanger believed that certain populations of human beings should not reproduce. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger writes the following:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded. (pp. 101-102)
According to Sanger, people with mental or physical deficiencies were a drain on society and, as such, should not be allowed to be born.

…we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization. (p. 187)
Sanger also believed that it was the responsibility of the State to eliminate the populations of the unworthy.

Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations -- unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities. (p. 82)
Even though Sanger’s advocacy was primarily for contraception, not abortion, she clearly lacked any sense of the intrinsic value of human life. When life is valued – or devalued – based upon any factor other than its inherent sanctity, horrific consequences are not far behind.

In 1920, the year before Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, German judge Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche co-wrote a 60-page booklet entitled "Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens" (translated as "The Approval to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life.") Binding and Hoche argued that people with terminal illness, mental illness, and other disabilities, whose lives were “unworthy of life,” could be euthanized. The following, from the original in the German language, shows the complete lack respect for the intrinsic value of human life in Binding and Hoche’s work:

Ihr Leben ist absolut zwecklos, aber sie empfinden es nicht als unerträglich. Für die Angehörigen wie für die Gesellschaft bilde sie eine furchtbar schwere Belastung. Ihr Tod reißt nicht die geringste Lücke - außer vielleicht im Gefühl der Mutter oder der treuen Pflegerin.
Here is the translation to English:

Their life is absolutely pointless, but they do not feel that it is unbearable. They are a terrible, heavy burden upon their relatives and society as a whole. Their death would not create even the slightest void--except perhaps in the feelings of their mothers or trusted nurses.
Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s, the idea that the value of human life was conditional as opposed to innate began to permeate German society. It was an idea that created the conditions that eventually made the holocaust possible.

American psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton writes that Binding and Hoche had laid the “philosophical groundwork” for the transition between mandatory sterilization and “killing or designating for death one's own patients.” Here, he outlines the steps from forced sterilization to the Nazi extermination camps:

Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the destruction of ''life unworthy of life,'' coercive sterilization was the first. There followed the killing of ''impaired'' children in hospitals, and then the killing of ''impaired'' adults -mostly collected from mental hospitals - in centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide. The same killing centers were then used for the murders of ''impaired'' inmates of concentration camps. The final step was mass killing, mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves.
In 1938 a letter was written to Adolf Hitler requesting permission to put to death a baby known as “Baby Knauer,” who was born blind and missing a leg and part of an arm. Hitler sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. The doctors who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no justification for keeping the child alive," and the baby was euthanized.

Hitler soon authorized the establishment of a child-killing program. Doctors and midwives were required to notify officials when a baby was born with birth defects. Each case was reviewed to determine whether the baby would be euthanized. The program started with newborns but was soon expanded to include older children, then adults.

As the program was expanded to include older people, it was also expanded in terms of the kinds of diseases and disabilities that would warrant euthanasia. At first, people were designated for euthanasia because of conditions such as profound mental retardation, Down syndrome, paralysis, and deformities of any kind. Eventually, the program included those with minor handicaps, juvenile delinquents, …and Jewish children.

In more recent times, we can see many parallels to the accepted killing of human beings in the first half of the 20th century. In the Netherlands, the Dutch have practiced infanticide since at least 1992, and in 2005 published the Groningen Protocol, which established accepted infanticide guidelines. Italian Parliamentary Affairs Minister Carlo Giovanardi made a statement in March 2006 critical of the Dutch practice of infanticide. Giovanardi said, "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas are reemerging in Europe via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Dutch officials were outraged at Giovanardi’s comment; however, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, had this to say:

… the Netherlands cannot escape this ugly fact: Dutch doctors kill scores of babies each year and justify this fundamental abuse of human rights upon the inherently discriminatory concept that they can decide that another human being's life is of such low quality it has no business being lived.

In this sense, the Dutch infanticide program is explicitly akin to the murder of Baby Knauer in 1938. Unless we decide to revise our historical assessment of that crime and proclaim Hitler's authorization for the baby's euthanasia as compassionate and right, the systematic program of Dutch infant euthanasia should be loudly and universally condemned.
Even here in our own country, many no longer honor the fundamental sanctity of human life. In 1982 in Bloomington, Indiana, a baby known as "Baby Doe" was born with Down syndrome and with a separation of the esophagus from the stomach, which prevented food from reaching the stomach. A routine operation could have corrected the problem involving the esophagus. However, because the baby would, of course, still have Down syndrome, the parents refused to allow the operation, choosing instead to allow the baby to die. The case was taken to court in an attempt to have the court order medical treatment for the baby. The Indiana Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the parents, and even though many families offered to adopt the baby, the parents still refused. Baby Doe died seven days after birth.

In 2005, Terri Schiavo died after her husband refused to allow her to receive nourishment and hydration through feeding tubes. Terri was brain damaged, but not brain dead. She was not on artificial live support; she needed only to be provided food and water. Terri's parents begged to be allowed to care for their daughter, but the court ruled against them and ordered the feeding tubes removed. After 13 days, Terri Schiavo died of dehydration.

We now have a President who, as an Illinois state senator opposed legislation to require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived an induced labor abortion attempt. A nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago testified that babies who survived the procedure, who were completely separated from their mothers, and who were alive and breathing on their own, were left on the floor of a utility room to die.

The Illinois State Senate drafted a bill that would require medical personnel to provide care for these babies. Barack Obama vocally opposed the bill, voted against it twice, and the third time, as chairman of the Health and Human Services committee, prevented the bill from even making it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. He was more concerned with protecting a woman’s supposed right to have an abortion than he was with protecting the life of a living, breathing baby lying on the floor of a hospital utility room. These babies were allowed to die simply because they weren’t wanted.

Most people know that President Obama has been appointing individuals as “czars” of various programs. An individual by the name of John Holdren is Obama’s “science czar.” What most people don’t know about Holdren, however, is that in 1977 he co-authored a book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In his book, Holdren suggests possible ways to control population, including all of the following: forced abortion, requiring illegitimate babies be put up for adoption, requiring pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, forced sterilization of populations by adding a sterilant to the drinking water or to food supplies, and forced sterilization of women after their second or third child.

When Justice Ginsburg said that she thought that the Roe decision was going to be a way to limit population growth and “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” it was surprising that she said it, but not surprising that she thought it. Since the Roe decision in 1973, nearly 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States. That’s a population of 50 million lives - lives that someone decided had no value – human beings that someone decided should never be born.

Friday, July 10, 2009

ABC to the Rescue

You've probably already seen it by now, but if not, here is the picture that is making headlines around the world.

In the picture, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy appear to eyeing the backside of 16 year-old Mayora Tavares of Brazil.

It looks like the two Presidents have been caught in an embarrassing moment, but Mr. Obama need not worry. ABC News has come to his defense.

ABC News has posted a video that, according to the news anchor, shows that Obama..."may be watching his footing, may by be looking at the steps, may be letting her pass - as opposed to a checkout..." You can watch the video here.

When I watch the video, it looks like the President may have been watching his footing or simply letting the young lady pass. It also looks like he may have caught a quick glance at the young lady's backside. You can decide that for yourself.

My response is this: Who knows? Who cares? The real problem is how quickly ABC News rushes to Obama's defense.

Let's imagine for a moment that it had been President George W. Bush in this situation instead of President Barack H. Obama. How would ABC, and NBC, and CBS, and MSNBC, and CNN have reported the incident? Something like this.

President Bush was caught today in what many are calling a very inappropriate moment of indiscretion. The President is shown here (at this point they would show the picture on the television screen) ogling the backside of a 16 year-old girl at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. The picture is causing embarrassment to the United States worldwide, and Democrats are calling for an investigation into the President's possible pedophilic tendencies.

But that was then; this is now. ABC has once again performed dutifully in the major media's role as a President Obama public relations and damage control industry.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

The American Ruling Class in Moscow

We're being told that we must all sacrifice in the midst of our current economic crisis. Evidently, "all" does not include the First Family.

In April, Michelle Obama wore a pair of $540 sneakers to a D.C. food bank. In May, the President and First Lady jetted to New York City for a date night. Some estimates put the cost of the date at nearly a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, although the exact cost is not known because the "most open presidency in history" has refused to divulge those numbers.

Now, the First Lady has reportedly been carrying in Moscow a $5,950 alligator manila envelope clutch by VBH (which I think is a really high-class way of saying an expensive gator-skin small purse manufactured by a company that I've never heard of before, but then, I'm just a uneducated redneck from flyover country).

The White House denies that Mrs. Obama's little purse, uh.. envelope clutch, cost that much. They say that it cost only $875. However, a representative for VBH said, "It’s definitely ours."

Either way, this image of the First Lady making a show of such extravagance in a city with a long history of ruling class extravagance juxtaposed against working class poverty seems to me to be more than a little unsettling.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Hate-Speech from the Left

Shown above is a picture of the left-wing Huffington Post blog article posted on July 3 by Erik Sean Nelson. Nelson's post was entitled "Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform."

The following is from the text of that post:

In Sarah Palin's resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the "world needs more Trigs, not fewer." That's a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it's kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.

Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.

She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40's just to mix up some chromosomes.

She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.

Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.

This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.

Nelson later removed the post with the following "apology."

Within ten minutes of my post I received some emails from the loved ones of the retarded and I saw that my piece was hurtful. Therefore, I removed the post right after receiving the first 2 emails.

If this were a conservative writing this kind of trash, he would be lambasted in the media and fired, and rightfully so. And that miserable and disingenuous excuse for an apology wouldn't save him, nor should it. It's pathetic.

So what about Nelson? As of the time of this posting, he's still a contributor for The Huffington Post.

The Conservative Sites Webring by lazarst
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]