Thursday, October 30, 2008

'social justice' wackiness

PETA Wants Proposed Homosexual High School to Have ‘Vegan’ Cafeteria

In the name of “tolerance,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wants a proposed Chicago public high school designed for homosexual and lesbian students to offer a vegetarian-only menu.

“The school in Chicago is in a very unique position in aligning its cafeteria with the social justice message that they’re teaching in the classroom,” PETA Director of Media Relations Michael McGraw told

IFI opposes Social Justice High – Pride Campus, Higgins said, because taxpayer dollars will go to fund the “controversial and unproven socio-political theories” behind the school’s founding.

Ok, let's see...

This is a PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL!!!!! As in, tax payer money is going into creating a public high school based solely on the students supposed sexual orientations!!!

As in, if I lived in Chicago, my tax money would be used to build and run this travesty???

Then, there is the name...Social Justice High.

Yes, that's right, the words 'social justice' front and center in the name.

And, finally, there's PETA sticking it's furry little nose in, trying to make the school meatless.

I find this sick and sad.

real justice

I put up a post yesterday, telling about how Obama, and I think by extension those in the current 'social justice'movement, are looking at using the courts to implement their own agendas, which involve among other things a version of class warfare--courts are to be to favor the 'have-nots' over the 'haves', championing the poor, playing favorites based on real or perceived economic conditions.

By way of counterpoint, consider these, please.

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge you neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 18:17

Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,

and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.
Exodus 23:2-3

Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.
Deuteronomy 1:17a

There is no denial here of the fact that the Bible says much about caring for those who can do little or nothing to help themselves--the orphans and widows, for example. Such acts of mercy are good things.

But that is not what we are seeing put forward nowadays. We are seeing rather the injustice of favoritism. On the surface, it's favoritism for the poor. To repeat what the article yesterday said...

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

This is injusticed, plain and simple.

If he were saying that judges should favor the strong and great over the weak, people would see the injustice right off (I hope) and have nothing to do with it. But because it's suppose to favor the 'little man', then it's put under the misnomer of 'social justice' and becomes acceptable by many.

This must be avoided by us. Justice must be just, meaning it must judge cases fairly, no matter the party's social standing.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

who says there is no "culture of death"?

Is Forced Death Coming to Washington State ... Again?

Every so often, I come one someone, usually in my reading, that says that there is no "culture of death". This, despite the numbers on abortion, attempts to not save the lives of babies who survive abortion attempts (thank you, Mr. Obama), Kevorkian and assisted suicide.

I do think these people are blind. Perhaps not willfully (though one does wonder).

But now, the voters in Washington have to make a decision again regarding who should live and who should die. And as the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide makes perfectly clear, Initiative 1000 has huge problems, which is why they are working night and day to encourage voters in the state to vote against the Initiative. Make sure to check out the powerful ad on the Coalition's web site, featuring recently deceased Barbara Ann Wagner.

For starters, Eileen Geller, R.N., B.S.N., points out what could and probably will happen if this Initiative becomes law:

· Spouses and family members do not need to be told before – or after – a loved one is given lethal drugs.
· Persons suffering from depression can be given a lethal overdose without any psychological counseling or treatment – nothing in the Initiative requires an assessment of potential depression by a qualified professional.
· Health care insurers and HMO's could exploit I-1000 to save costs, since a bottle of lethal drugs costs far less than other end-of-life care.
· Heirs to a patient's estate are allowed to participate in the assisted suicide and to witness the request for lethal drugs. This would contravene existing practice governing wills and estates, a scenario that worries law enforcement because of the real potential for abuse.

Protecting the vulnerable, the ill and the dying is a never-ending struggle for each of us who realize that a human being's life, including one's own life, is a gift from God and not a thing to be used or abused at will. So, in this politically volatile year, I believe it is time for every person with the right to vote and a properly formed conscience to assess carefully what President Ronald Reagan once said: “What America needs is spiritual renewal and reconciliation – first, man with God, and then man with man.”

what they mean when they say "social justice"

Obama Sees Supreme Court Justices as Champions of the Weak Over the Strong

For Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, Supreme Court justices should champion the weak against the strong.

“He’s talking about the Court being a liberal activist body, a tool for social change,” said Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank.

But deciding who is powerless and who is powerful isn’t the question, says Alt. Instead, justices should judge cases based on which side presents the more compelling legal argument, regardless of who the plaintiff is.

“The judges and the courts should not be playing favorites,” he said. “They shouldn’t be paying attention to who it is who’s making the arguments, they should be deciding who has the better legal argument.”

What this pretty much comes down to may be labelled in a few different ways--rule of sympathy, rule of emotions, rule of emotional blackmail or emotional manipulation, rule by perception.

But it's not Rule of Law. And it certainly is not justice.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Monday, October 20, 2008

what sojo seems to want us to ignore

Obama's Abortion Extremism

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.


They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! "pro-choice"-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.


What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "that question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy - and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

It's a long article, there is much more in it then I'm giving here, but it's well worth the read. Anyone thinking this man is in any way pro-life has voluntarily put their head in the sand, or is making a political compromise that is beyond sickening, and for the supposed 'pro-life' Sojourners to try to push this man on us only shows how far down the road to compromise (and worse) they have gone.

Friday, October 17, 2008

disgusting compromising

I'm not going to link to this article, because it sickens me too much to want to give it any amount of bump. If you want to verify it, it's called "A New Conversation on Abortion" and it's found at Sojourners.

In last evening's presidential debate, the first steps were taken toward a new national conversation about abortion. For too many years, the old one hadn't changed very much. It came up every four years during elections and seldom in between. The Republicans repeated that they think abortion should just be completely illegal; and the Democrats repeated their only mantra of a "woman's right to choose." And the number of abortions remained mostly unchanged.

Oh, so we should stop, because we haven't made much progress? So you want sell out, Mr. Wallis? You want to put this issue behind you, I guess, so you can focus on more important things, like how to spin Obama's "spread the poverty" tax plan?

Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results

I wish I has an angry red-faced smiley here, because if I did, I would put a whole line them right here, to express how I think and feel about this 'abortion reduction' crap.

Let me put it this way...

Let's say that all we asked from Nazi Germany was only a reduction in the number of Jewish people put into extermination camps and killed off and put into mass graves. How does that sound to you?

Let's say that all we adked from al Qaeda was a reduction in the number of planes they flew into buildings. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from Arafat and the Palestinian terrorists is a reduction in the number of people killing themselves in suicide bombing attacks against Israel. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked from the KKK of years ago was a reduction in the number of racial attacks and killings on their part. How does that sound?

Let's say that all we asked of Stalin or Pol Pot or any other commie-dictator-mass murderer was a reduction in the number of people they put into gulags and mass murdered. How does that sound?

No, Mr. Wallis, this is not an area of compromise. Murder is murder, whether it's 10 or 5 or those numbers in millions. Murder is absolutely wrong, and we ask not for the reduction of it, but the absolute banning of legalized murder via the legalizing of abortion.

Your attempts at compromise are sickening and disgusting, Mr. Wallis. You do not speak for me and such as myself.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

more kiddie indoctrination

Calif. First Graders ‘Indoctrinated’ in Visit to Same-Sex Wedding, Critics Say

( – Nearly five months after California’s Supreme Court issued a decision creating same-sex marriage, a class of first graders was the first to be officially exposed to a same-sex marriage ceremony in San Francisco.

It’s a move that some say is “indoctrination.”

“This shows that homosexual ‘marriages’ are designed not just to gain public approval of the homosexual lifestyle, but designed to indoctrinate children to be ‘better’ than their ‘bigoted elders,’” Randy Thomasson, president and founder of the non-profit Campaign for Children and Families, told

“‘Get them while they’re young’ is the goal of homosexual activists, and they’re succeeding in San Francisco,” he added. “Now parents and grandparents have a vivid example from San Francisco of how children are already being indoctrinated to support homosexual marriage and see this as an acceptable ‘relationship’ based on ‘love,’” Thomasson told

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

of course, why stop at indoctrination...

...when the grandkids can be used to put pressure on grandparents to vote know who.

CBS Promotes Pro-Obama Video by Sarah Silverman, Censors and Ignores All Its Profanity

Be warned, the above does contain language used by her video. It's pretty bad, which is one thing the Newsbusters' article is pointing out.

PRICE: So forget the stump speeches and the big crowds. This election may all come down to a one-on-one conversation with a grandson.

SILVERMAN: If they vote for Barack Obama they're going to get another visit this year. If not, let's just hope they stay healthy until next year.


One thing to point out it the double-standard and hypocrisy shown here. Who else but a liberal could get away with calling on parents to use their children to influence the grandparents? Who else but a liberal could get away with saying the things she says about Jews and blacks in the video? And who else but a liberal would have those things not just ingored by the media, but laughed at?

The more this campaign goes on, the more sick it becomes.

get them indoctrinated early

Obama Pushed on Our Kids in Lit Textbook

Over at RealDebateWisconsin Fred Dooley was contacted by the mother of a Racine Unified School District 8th grade student in Wisconsin public schools about an outrageous thing she found in her son's school textbook. Apparently, in this textbook supposedly teaching about literature, one of the books being pushed as a perfect example of that subject is Barack Obama's memoir Dreams from my Father. That's right, a book by a current political candidate for president is being pushed on our children as "literature." It also seems probable from campaign donation records that a principle member of the publishing company is a large Obama donor.

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an sign.

Monday, October 6, 2008

leaving the big two

This presidential election has provided a rather classic no-win situation for someone like myself.

On the one hand, there are the Dem Leacherals (a name I'll explain later). Voting for Obama is, for me, not an option.

On the other hand, there are the Rep Compromiservatives. I simply cannot trust McCain as a politician, which is sad, because although he's had his failings, as a man he seems to be one that can be admired and respected.

But McCain the politician isn't one I can trust. He has shown too often a habit of compromising with leacherals on almost any issue.

The choice of Palin for his Vice-President was unexpected, and gives some life to his campaign. Before selecting her, I was anticipating him picking someone like Lieberman, who despite being a Liberal who can be partially respected is still a Liberal, and that I would in essence not be left with a choice. Choosing Palin at least gave me pause in that regard.

But maybe not enough. The truth is, McCain is still the one running for President, and while the VP pick is important, it doesn't supercede the Presidential choice.

As now, McCain has voted for the bailout. This is touchy, because it's about things I don't understand well. But I think I do understand that the government essentially owning mortgages is a very bad idea, and that this bailout is essentially socialism sneaking in the back door. None of that is good.

So, what is a conservative like me to do?

The thought of not voting at all is there, and one I don't readily dismiss. It isn't enough to say that I'll be voting for "the lesser of two evils", because I would still be voting for an evil. An Obama presidency has the strong potentially of being shameful and a disaster, but a McCain one doesn't promise to be much better.

I think that my vote has some worth. Not in a monetary sense, but in a sense of approval and favor of what the person and the party stand for. It would take a very un-Democrat Democrat to have me vote for such a one, seeing all of the things the Democrat Party supports--legalizing immorality, the continuing of abortion, weakening of the military, higher taxes and the redistribution of wealth. A Democrat would essentially have to not be a Democrat in order to get my vote.

My vote, then, is simply not to be given to one I do not deem worthy of it. Obama is not, and I have my serious doubts about McCain.

So, what's left.

Not voting, as I said, is an option. Not because I do not value the right to vote, but because I do, and I must exercise that right with wisdom. And if there is no canditate I can approve of with my vote, then for me to vote just because there is an election with no one I can approve is to essentially waste that right.

There are also other, smaller parties. I'm not Libertarian, and certainly not a Green. I have read the positions of the Constitution Party, though, and while I'm not in complete agreement with them, I am enough to at least consider casting my vote for their candidate.

For any who may be interested, here's the Constitution Party's Platform.

There is still time. We'll see how these last few weeks go. Perhaps McCain can avoid pulling defeat from the jaws of victory, though how much of a victory that would be for all of us is doubtful.

And if we elect Obama, then, well, we'll only have asked for what's coming.