NPR aborts “pro-life” terminology

This afternoon Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote the following on his Twitter account:

Language watch: NPR bans “pro-life,” now will refer to “abortion rights opponents.” So now “rights” trump “life.” http://ow.ly/1rZIq

Pro-choice is now “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocates.” Pro-life is now “abortion rights opponents.” While it is acceptable to use the term “anti-abortion” it is not acceptable to use the term “pro-abortion rights.” Mohler is absolutely correct in asserting that now, according to taxpayer-funded National Public Radio, rights trump life. However, there is something far more insidious about what this new vocabulary represents. Continue reading “NPR aborts “pro-life” terminology”

An open letter to President Bush

Dear Mr. President,

As your second and final term as the President of the United States of America draws to a close, there will many a retrospective done on your eight years in office. Many pundits will offer their opinions and recollections of your administration. In fact, if the opinion polls are to be believed, many in this country will celebrate the end of your career in elected office as a new Democratic administration takes the reins in the White House.

I, however, just want to say, “Thank you.”

Now, I will be the first one to admit that there have been many times over the last eight years when I was upset with a decision you made. I grew frustrated by some of your policies, by some of your actions, by some of your lack of actions. But there is a time and a place to hash all of that out and now is not the time. You are leaving the White House and you deserve the thanks of a grateful nation. So, thank you.

Mr. President, when you were sworn in eight years ago the nation was clearly divided, and that hasn’t changed. You moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the intention of bringing a “new tone” to Washington coupled with “compassionate conservatism.” A hostile Democratic Party and a portion of the country that felt they had been wronged by the 2000 election resolution vilified you from the start. You, however, remained gracious in spite of their attacks. You handled yourself with class and dignity. You represented the office of President with distinction in a political climate that is distinct for its divisiveness. Thank you.

When Islamists terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the nation looked to you to guide us through the coming storm. You stood tall and were not afraid to call evil what it is. You declared a long overdue “war on terror” and, because of the military strategies that have unfolded, have forced terrorists to fight us on their own soil, and not our own soil. We have not been attacked since. In addition, you led our military forces to rid the world of one of the most dispicable dictators in the world, Saddam Hussein. Critics use hindsight to criticize the war in Iraq because no weapons of mass destruction were found, but even the most ardent opponents in Congress were agreeing back then that the intelligence pointed in the direction of Iraq. I don’t know how Iraq will turn out in the end, but based upon the scant media reports given today, our troops have succeeded and the people of Iraq have hope. Thank you.

The Supreme Court is always one of the biggest reasons why people vote a certain way in a presidential election. You swore to appoint justices that upheld the Constitution and did not try to legislate from the bench. So far John Roberts and Samuel Alito have been judges that strict constructionists can, for the most part, be proud of. They upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, ending (hopefully not temporarily) a gruesome and murderous practice. Thank you.

The centerpiece of your domestic campaign in 2000 was a tax cut. The result of the tax cuts was more money in the pockets of Americans, over six years of economic growth, and increased government revenue. To that end you brought a little Reagan, a little conservatism, back to the nation. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Don’t pay attention to the approval ratings. I firmly believe that if, God willing, this nation remains, in the decades following historians and Americans in general will remember the Bush years with a much more fondness than they do now. Your presidency reminds me very much of what I have read about President Harry S. Truman. He was a president during war and during peace. He made a lot of tough decisions. He overcame stiff opposition. His approval rating was in the tank when he left office for a member of the opposing party to come in. But in the 56 years since he left office the general opinion of Truman has grown greater, and now historians often rank him highly in those presidential lists. I believe history will be kind to you. Where will they rank you? I don’t know. It’s not important ultimately.

The one thing I will appreciate about your presidency more than anything else is this: In whatever you did, whether I agreed with it or not, I am fairly confident that you always did what you thought was the right thing to do. I can’t say that about the guy who preceded you. I don’t know that I’ll be able to say it about the new guy. I say it about you without much reservation. That is an underrated quality in a President of the United States of America. It’s one you have had in spades. And for that, I thank you.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Matt Privett
Louisville, KY

I am an “ANGRY RIGHT-WING BLOGGER”!

Well it seems my post from a few days ago got noticed by at least one liberal blogger who believes the Bush Administration has avoided the press and has been “SILENCING AND INSULTING HELEN THOMAS.” Party on!

It seems my post on how the trend of the Obama campaign and transition has been to demonize and/or avoid news outlets that dare stray from the Democratic talking points struck a chord. You can read their side of the story here. My favorite line is this,

I’m looking forward to a President standing before the media again – even far right FOX. Frankly, it will be a delight to have a President who actually knows the language, and isn’t afraid to use it.

And it will be nice to watch as the Constitution, all of it, is restored.

That’s just precious, especially when you analyze President-Elect Obama’s comments in the past which show an underlying hostility for the Constitution and the way it limits federal government from doing all of the things his ideology desires.

What’s equally precious is this blogger’s appeal to the recent stories about the allegations of unnamed sources regarding Gov. Sarah Palin. This, of course, showed the kind of journalistic integrity that we can celebrate – freedom of the press and all. Notice how the media is once again in love with Sen. John McCain after his concession speech but continues to do a hatchet job on Palin. That’s because she is still a threat to them, while the Democrat’s favorite Republican is once again the Democrat’s favorite Republican.

Anyway, if blogs like that want to consider me an “ANGRY RIGHT-WING BLOGGER” then I will wear that badge with honor.

SuPRESSion: A troubling trend in an Obama-nation

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, emphasis mine)

First, there were the repeated references to FOX News during the campaign. Then, three newspapers which endorsed John McCain for President – The Washington Times, The New York Post, and The Dallas Morning News – were booted off the campaign airplane because of overcrowding. Today, President-Elect Barack Obama took a few questions after his statement on the economy at his first news conference since the election. Noticeably, Obama took questions from the AP, Reuters, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, and both major Chicago papers, the Tribune and Sun-Times — but not FOX News.

Combine these incidents with the increasing noise being made by Senate Democrats about bringing back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” and I think there is legitimate reason for Christians and conservatives to be concerned about an intensified effort to suppress the possibility of dissenting speech. Let’s look at the trend.

Take the papers that endorsed McCain. Three high profile daily papers in three of the largest cities in the country, which had all covered the Obama campaign from the beginning, were kicked off of the campaign’s airplane because of space concerns. Who did they have to make room for? Jet and Essence magazines. They were evicted from the plane for two monthly publications geared toward a certain demographic. Three newspapers with wide circulation and broad, demographically diverse readership, all of which endorsed Obama’s opponent, were removed for two publications which, let’s be honest, would be far less likely to ask serious, hard questions of the now President-Elect. And you can add an asterisk by the New York Post since, of course, it’s own by News Corporation, the same company that owns FOX News.

Now, FOX News… oh, FOX News… the highest rated cable news channel in the nation… the scourage on the press and the cable dial according to many liberals. The network, and Sean Hannity in particular, were frequent targets of Obama and his surrogates – a convenient scapegoat for the so-called smear tactics.

Let’s pretend for a moment that their criticisms of the network were grounded in fact. Let’s pretend that FOX News promoted a conservative agenda and was anti-Democrat, anti-liberal. On what basis is there for an open and honest campaign, like the one Obama supposedly ran, to repeatedly lob criticisms at the network? If I were Obama and had nothing to hide, I would’ve been on FOX News personally at least once a week making my case to the voters watching the highest rated network. This is not what happened. Now the network is ignored when it comes to the new President-Elect’s first news conference. Instead, he answered the questions of the same old, so-called mainstream, liberal media. As a quick aside, it’s worth noting the question he spent the longest amount of time on was about a new dog for his girls. That’s hard-hitting journalism right there.

Of course, FOX News is not conservatively biased. It just seems that way to liberals because there is actually a free-flowing discussion of ideas, policies, and news-making events. For every Hannity there is Colmes. Bill O’Reilly gets criticized by viewers from all sides and goes out of his way to avoid what many might call “extreme views” on both sides of the political spectrum. A recent independent study showed that FOX News, during a given time frame, showed an almost equal amount of positive and negative stories on both Republicans and Democrats (the difference was numerically insignificant). Meanwhile, NBC’s cable sister MSNBC had a whopping 73% negative rating against the McCain campaign (and I think that number is probably low).

Now I know that the McCain campaign had its own things to say about MSNBC, but the fact of the matter is they never went out of their way to avoid MSNBC, or CNN, or any other news outlet for that matter. Who did Sarah Palin sit down for her first major television interviews with? Not FOX! It was Charlie Gibson of ABC. It was Katie Couric of CBS.

FOX News’s personalities haven’t a shred of the vitriolic rhetoric found in the likes of Keith Olbermann. How is anyone supposed to take Chris Matthews seriously as a journalist with his repeated “tingly leg” type comments? Obama avoided The O’Reilly Factor for over a year, until he conveniently agreed to appear during the heart of the Republican National Convention. But it’s FOX News that is biased, FOX News that is to blame for American’s distrust of journalists today! The gall.

The bottom line is that the Obama campaign, and now transition, seems to be going out of its way to avoid news outlets that show a modicum of independence from the Democratic talking points. Are we supposed to believe the endorsements of those three papers played no role in their ejection from the plane? The freedom of the press, it would appear, only extends to those who are willing to buy into the new President-Elect’s cult of personality.

Obama has said before that he is against the reinstitution of the “Fairness Doctrine.” Given the actions of his campaign and transition, however, are we supposed to buy that? Are we supposed to believe that he will stand up to the desires of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid if they push for it? It will be an attack on free speech and an attempt to squash dissent before it has a chance to be heard by the masses.

Why John McCain is not getting this conservative evangelical’s vote

Despite Mike Huckabee’s persistent drive to make a last stand, it is clear that he is spitting against the wind and Sen. John McCain of Arizona will be the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States.  However, as a conservative Southern Baptist and lifelong Republican, I will not be voting for him come November.  Make no mistake about it, I will also not be voting for Sens. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  However, this year I refuse to cast a vote against them to boost the chances of a politician whose integrity is at least as questionable as his potential opponents.

McCain has been a U.S. Senator since 1986 and a member of Congress since 1982, but he burst onto the national scene in 2000 when he was George W. Bush’s chief challenger for the Republican nomination.  His “straight-talk express” was praised by the media and by more moderate Republicans, but after putting up a fight early he subsequently got hammered in South Carolina and subsequently withdrew from the race.  Weeks after Bush took the oath of office, McCain met with several key Democrats about the possibility of leaving the Republican Party (something Jim Jeffords would actually do eventually).  Now he seeks to convince us that he’s a true representative of conservative values.  His record, however, screams otherwise.

  • The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was and is an attack of First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights that has done nothing to eliminate money from the political process.
  • He cannot stop talking about his support for the troop surge in Iraq, as if he is solely responsible for its success, and he touts himself as the war candidate. However, he is an “open borders” guy who introduced the biggest attempt at granting amnesty to illegal immigrants yet. Today he says he’s learned his lesson and that he will secure the borders first, but in a world where campaign promises are worth as much as Monopoly money, you have to look at his record.  McCain-Kennedy was amnesty, pure and simple, and an attempt to subvert the rule of law in this country.  It’s clear he doesn’t consider border security part of the War on Terror, no matter his campaign rhetoric (which should be a big red flag, especially for a Senator from Arizona).
  • He voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  Today he says that he did so because there were no budget cuts to go along with them.  Fair enough, but why didn’t he say that in 2001 or 2003?  Instead, he railed against the tax cuts with class warfare rhetoric worthy of Al Gore or John Edwards.  Now he says he wants to make the tax cuts permanent, but on what basis should we trust him on this issue?
  • He has worked against American energy independence by voting against drilling for oil in ANWR.  He played a key role in the defeat of a bill that would have most likely allowed this country to pry itself out of the tight grip of OPEC and become more energy independent, driving down gas and heating oil prices as a result and further securing our country.
  • He buys into the liberal environmentalist agenda that drives up the costs of food and other goods and sabotages the American economy.  The McCain-Lieberman bill regarding greenhouse gases and taxing authority is evidence of this.
  • His support of embryonic stem cell research betrays any pretense of a view that he defends the sanctity of human life.  His record may, by and large, be pro-life on the issue of abortion, but his view on stem cells makes that iffy at best.
  • McCain helped engineer the “Gang of 14” which kept Senate filibuster rules in place that make it very difficult to appoint judges.  This has not so much been a factor with Bush’s Supreme Court nominations as it has with his federal court appointments that receive much less publicity but still hold a very important role.  These rules betray the Senate’s given role in the Constitution to “advise and consent.”

McCain has done his level best to appeal to the conservative base of the GOP and convince the world that he is a faithful follower of the Reagan revolution.  But that is what Republicans hoping to win their party’s nomination do during the primary season.  Once the nomination is secure, probably with a more conservative VP candidate, I expect him to begin swinging left in an attempt to woo those independents and Democrats he’s famous for appealing to.  I suspect we’ve heard the most conservative rhetoric out of the Senator from Arizona that we’re going to here, and if he wins in November he’s going to take the Republican Party down with him.

Obama or Clinton will be bad for this country and I am by no means rooting for them; however, I believe McCain will be just as bad.  In the process of defending their President out of a misguided sense of party obligation, the Republicans in Congress will be impotent (see George H.W. Bush’s term as President), rather than galvanized against a Democratic president (see Bill Clinton’s first term).

I’m hoping conservatives will learn their lesson.  I’m a conservative who is utterly disappointed with our President (especially domestic policy) and our Republicans in Congress (utterly unwilling to dig in and fight).  The Republican Party doesn’t own my vote just because that’s where it has always gone.  I will search for an independent party candidate for President this year, knowing there is little to no chance that candidate will win, because it is what I believe is right, responsible, and politically smart.  For what it’s worth I believe McCain will lose in a landslide to either Obama or Clinton.  Ultimately, God appoints nations and their leaders so I trust in His sovereignty.  Perhaps He will grant me wisdom between now and November if I am wrong, but as of right now, I cannot vote for McCain in good conscience, and so will not do so.