I just cringe when I see stories like this. Last week we talked on the radio show about the coming alliance between the Warmers (those leftists wanting to control our lives in terms of how far we can travel and what temperature we can set our home thermostats) and the Movers (those leftists wanting to control our lives in terms of what we can eat and how much of it). It looks like they may be joined by a third freedom-destroying group, making up a three headed monster of regulation and manipulation:
During a discussion series on Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., speaker and activist Kavita Ramdas argued that contraceptives should be part of a strategy to save the planet, calling lower birth rates a “common sense” part of a climate-change reduction strategy.
At the event, titled “Women’s Health: Key to Climate Adaptation Strategies,” Ramdas pointed to studies conducted by health consultants at the for-profit Futures Group, the government-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, in Austria, to connect contraception with climate change.
Ramdas told The Daily Caller that the research shows “empowering women to time their pregnancies” and avoid unwanted births would reduce carbon emissions between 8 to 15 percent globally.
Did you notice that slight change of language, but dramatic pivot that these liberals just articulated? We’re no longer calling them “unwanted pregnancies,” but rather unwanted births. Think about the power of that word change. We are now moving into a brave new era where these abortion fanatics are going to unabashedly acknowledge what is really the problem to them: it’s not the inconvenience of a pregnancy. It’s the lack of willingness to accept responsibility for a child.
I hope someone has called the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that Obama supporters, the entire group of them...every single person that plans on voting for Barack Obama in 2012...are radical wackos that represent a security threat to the country.
How do I know that? This:
A Tennessee man described as an Obama “fanatic” has been convicted of threatening to kill Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his family, possibly in connection with the lawman’s investigation into the president’s eligibility for office.
Adam Eugene Cox, 33, of Knoxville, was arrested Jan. 27 in connection with graphic online threats that came to light last October.
Cox’s threats included: “I plan to kill Arpaio first. He will be filled with a thousand bullet holes before the year is out. I promise you this. He won’t f**k with Obama. He will be buried 10 feet under and his whole family will be murdered along with him.”
Authorities say Cox’s postings indicate – and his own mother confirms – that Cox is a “fanatical supporter” of Obama, and Arpaio’s ongoing investigation into the legitimacy of the president’s purported birth certificate may have been the reason behind the threat to kill the sheriff.
And this isn’t some idle threat, mind you. Mr. Cox has a history of acting on his violent impulses:
Other "don't miss" segments from the radio show today:
The great one, Mark Steyn, absolutely demolishes Obama’s condescension towards conservative “flat-earthers.” If you’re going to mock the vision of others, at least have your facts straight. (listen)
Romney’s victory speech after Illinois was about as encouraging a speech as conservatives could have asked for coming from Mitt. Of course, his adviser follows it up with a bonehead statement. (listen)
Afghan president Karzai calls American soldiers “demons” and condemns our “Satanic acts.” It’s time for a serious conversation about what our mission is there. (listen)
Remember when CNN told us when gas prices went up under George Bush that it wasn’t “as bad as you think?” No, I don’t either. But, no surprise, that’s exactly what they’re saying now. (listen)
You know what I miss? I miss the atheists who just didn’t really care. Here’s what I mean: I get why Christians evangelize. As a Christian myself, I understand the vital importance of reaching out to a lost world and trying to introduce them to the grace that can bring them eternal salvation. For those of us who follow Christ, who said He is the only way, truth and life, we don’t really have a choice – it’s the Great Commission – to spread the Gospel message of Good News.
But for an atheist, what’s the point of getting other people to think like you? If there’s no such thing as salvation, if there’s no such thing as redemption, sin or grace or any of that stuff, then should it really matter to you what another person believes or doesn’t believe? It doesn’t. And for a while, that’s where most atheists were when it came to involvement in the public square. They kept their unbelief to themselves because they didn’t see how spreading their unbelief was in any way a benefit to society (by definition it wouldn’t be, because unlike Christianity there’s nothing gained from embracing unbelief).
But those days are long over, as the evangelistic atheists have descended upon us. And they’ve struck again, this time in Polk County, Florida. Here’s the story:
Until recently, if someone asked me to name my favorite funny movie of all time, I would have told you it was a toss-up between the classic Don Knotts comedy “The Ghost and Mr. Chicken” (where Attaboy Productions, Inc. got its name, by the way) or the hilarious Knotts-Tim Conway comedy “The Private Eyes.” That’s one that I’ve had committed to memory since my elementary school days.
But a new contender has now risen to the top. I’m not going to say it has eclipsed the other two, and I will reserve final judgment until after I have actually watched the entire thing from start to finish. But based on the clips I have seen, this is pure comedy gold. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. It’s called “The Road We’ve Traveled,” and stars the voice of Tom Hanks (another one of my favorites) chronicling the first term of Barack Obama.
Now some have told me this isn’t supposed to be a comedy, but I think they’re clueless. This is pure satire. It has to be. Just watch a few clips and you’ll see what I mean. Take this hilarious line, for instance:
There was an interesting assessment of the recent Republican-led short session of the Indiana Legislature that appeared in our local paper, the Kokomo Tribune, over the weekend. A few Republican lawmakers, all friends of the radio show and men that I hold in high regard, gave their thoughts on what Republicans were able to accomplish with their large majorities:
Three Republican state legislators representing the Kokomo area gave high marks to the recently ended Indiana General Assembly, a session dominated by GOP legislative priorities.
Senator Buck, as well as Representatives Karickhoff and Van Natter shared their views on what they saw as the success of passing Right to Work, a nine-year phase out of the inheritance tax, fully funded all day Kindergarten and a statewide smoking ban. With all due respect, I look at that list and scratch my head.
Yes, I think that the courage to pass Right to Work is something laudable. I think every worker should have the right to choose whether or not to join a union, and I like the fact that the law empowers the individual over union bosses. And I agree that getting rid of any tax is a nice thing – particularly something as odious as taxing inheritance (“Hey your Dad just died, let us take some of his money now that he’s out of the picture”). But outside of that, I can’t get excited about the government getting its hands on our kids at an earlier age. And as much as I dislike smoke being blown in my face, more government isn’t always the way to do it. Neither of those two things seem overly conservative to me.
Over the course of time, my colleagues and I at Liberty Tree have made observations concerning the impact that sexual anarchy has and will have on our culture. The most alarming observation is how the removal of sexual boundaries and morality is lending itself to the “final frontier” of sexual anarchy: the institutional legitimization of adult-child sexual relationships.
There are those, of course, who attempt to dismiss such concerns as complete exaggeration. It appears, though, that those who take this attitude choose to ignore credible evidence.
Although such evidence continues to emerge, as cited in past Liberty Tree commentaries and other places, I recently discovered an alarming testimony made years ago concerning this issue. As a member of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography in the 1980s, Dr. James Dobson said:
I will never forget a particular set of photographs shown to us at our first hearing in Washington, D.C. It focused on a cute, nine-year old boy who had fallen into the hands of a molester. In the first picture, the blonde lad was fully clothed and smiling at the camera. But in the second, he was nude, dead and had a butcher knife protruding from his chest. I served for 14 years as a member of a medical school faculty and thought I had seen it all. But my knees buckled and tears came to my eyes as these and hundreds of other photographs of children were presented showing pitiful boys and girls with their rectums enlarged to accommodate adult males and their vaginas penetrated with pencils, toothbrushes and guns.
When many people hear of an issue concerning homosexuality, they automatically draw conclusions before looking at the bigger picture. The controversy over the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) issuance of a specialty license plate, which raises funds for the Indiana Youth Group (IYG), is no different. It seemed doomed to be pushed into a liberal versus conservative box. Even when Governor Mitch Daniels was asked about his agency’s approval of the controversial plate, his response was, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
State approved messages children receive should be a concern to every legislator, the Governor and every Hoosier. The Indiana Youth Group is characterized as a homosexual organization, but many of its web and printed materials indicate that the IYG is a place for any sexual orientation: “straight,” “homosexual,” “bisexual,” “lesbian,” “polysexual,” “pansexual,” “transgender,” “transvestite,” “transsexual,” “genderqueer,” “questioning,” and other categories of which many readers may have never heard.
Problems with the IYG escalate when you realize that this is an organization which promotes sexual activity among children as young as 12 years old up to the age of 21. Placing 20 year olds and children under the age of sexual consent in settings regularly advertised on the IYG calendar should concern all responsible Hoosiers.