Still More Newspapers Endorse Romney

Here's a few excerpts from the editorials of newspapers recently endorsing Mitt Romney for President.

"Why Mitt? Reality Over Fantasy" (New Hampshire Union-Leader)

...Barack Obama was in Manchester on Thursday. When he came to Veterans Park in 2008, he sold “hope and change.” He was uplifting, inspiring. Last week, that was gone. In its place was the negativity, the deception, the nastiness that Obama once said he wanted to remove from politics.

Obama offered New Hampshire nothing but bitterness and envy. He attacked Romney with a litany of mischaracterizations and deliberate falsehoods. It was far from the uplifting message Obama delivered four years ago. But four years ago Obama did not have an indefensible record...

What Obama offers America is a fantasy. Sputtering economies are not sparked back to life by government-directed spending on industries hand-chosen by politicians. They are revived by unleashing the energy and creativity of the American people. The key difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is that Romney understands that crucial economic truth; Barack Obama does not…

While Obama offers rhetoric and pipe dreams, Romney offers a real plan to bring the economy back to life. It is not the George W. Bush plan. Bush spent more than he took in. Obama, who doubled Bush’s level of deficit spending, accuses Romney of wanting to return to Bush-type deficit spending. It is not true, but if it were, that would be an improvement over the last four years.

Obama had four years — half of them with a Democratic majority in Congress — to try his way. Romney offers a better way, a realistic way, to restore American prosperity. We tried the fantasy. It did not work. Now it is time to stop dreaming and start growing again.

"For President" (Columbus Dispatch)

After nearly four years of economic stagnation, massive unemployment, record-setting debt and government intrusions into the economy that have paralyzed the private sector, the United States needs a new direction. For this reason, The Dispatch urges voters to choose Republican Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election…

In 2008, Americans made a leap of faith when they elevated the inexperienced Obama to the White House. That faith was not rewarded. This time, voters should place their hopes for change in experience, by electing Romney.

"Mitt Romney for President" (Tampa Tribune)

...Under President Barack Obama's liberal and inconsistent leadership, the country has limped along, barely a step ahead of another recession. The deficit soared, government expanded and the prospects of more regulations and taxes chilled corporate investment.

Just as we warned four years ago, this master orator has pushed "America toward a European-style social democracy." We don't question Obama's motives. The president sincerely believes in the inviolable ability of the federal government to make all things right. But Americans should see that this top-down approach doesn't work.

Romney, in contrast, would capitalize on individuals' ingenuity, not Washington directives...

"Mitt Romney for President" (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

It sounds cliched, but it is a truism: America is at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of Leviathan government and an increasing dependence on it, or America can return to the path of limited government and the kind of prosperity-producing independence on which the Founders based this great republic.

The choice is yours. Our choice is the latter. And that’s why we enthusiastically endorse Republican Mitt Romney for president of the United States...

"Romney for President" (Houston Chronicle)

The Chronicle's backing of Barack Obama in 2008 broke a 44-year string of endorsing Republican candidates for president. Like so many others, we were captivated by the Illinois senator's soaring rhetoric and energized by his promise to move American politics beyond partisan gridlock and into an era of hope and change.

It hasn't happened. Four years later, President Obama's deeds have failed to match his words, much less his specific vows to cut the national debt by half and bring the nation's unemployment rate to 6 percent. As Texans, it is a particular vexation that this president's attitude toward the interests of our state has occasionally bordered on contempt, particularly in decisions relating to the NASA budget and the energy sector. The hurtful symbol of this attitude of insensitivity to Texans' feelings was the administration's choice to deny Space City's bid to become home to one of the retired space shuttles.

We do not believe four more years on the same plodding course toward economic recovery is the best path forward for Texas or the nation. And so we endorse the Republican team, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, in the belief that they can do better by Texas and the nation…

"Mitt Romney: New Leadership for More Economic Growth" (Ft. Worth Star-Telegram)

(Another generally Democrat newspaper who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.)

 Given the final two minutes to speak during Tuesday's second presidential debate, President Barack Obama quickly spotlighted what he said was the key distinction between his re-election candidacy and the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. "There's a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward," Obama said.

He's right, and "fundamentally different" is what the nation needs. For that reason, Romney should be elected president on Nov. 6. The slow U.S. economy and its discouragingly high unemployment overshadow the other important issues in this election. Economic recovery must be spurred to a faster pace, and a change to Romney's leadership would do that...

It's That Simple

DNC Chairwoman Goes Stone-Cold Stupid on Obama's "Kill List"

The combination of incompetence and raw arrogance exhibited by modern liberals, especially the people involved in the Obama administration, is absolutely stunning. Here's a dramatic case in point, "The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz" by Glenn Greenwald in the British newspaper, The Guardian. In the story, Greenwald describes not only how the "chairchick" of the Democratic National Committee is completely unaware of one of the biggest stories of the Obama years…but who then makes her stone-cold stupidity a matter of aloof pride.

You gotta' check this one out.

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die...

The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators…[But] That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010...The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.

Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:



Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

Today's Posts

No Whine, Just Shine

Has the Tipping Moment Arrived?

Romney's Worst Debate Whiff Was on Planned Parenthood

Uh, I Guess the Networks Forgot to Mention These Stories.

No Whine, Just Shine

Among the things that are worse (much worse) than the “creeping crud” that I’ve been battling these last few weeks (coughing, congestion, sinus pressure, etc.) is a “creeping crud” of a much different kind; namely, the ever-increasing flood of lies, false promises, manipulation, and voter fraud that comes with modern elections.

The first “creeping crud” makes me sick.  The second type sickens the whole culture.

And it has really plumbed the depths this time around regarding irrationality and immorality, hasn’t it?  Bold misrepresentations of the economic numbers.  Cover-ups of the scandals of Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and more.  Lying about the abortion mandates of Obamacare.  Playing the patsy to Muslim extremists and the Communist thugs of China and Russia.  Refusing to defend DOMA.  Pimping for Planned Parenthood.  A dramatic escalation of the welfare state while dismantling America’s national security. Wow.

And, of course, the lies about these things do not just come from the political ads and the speeches but also from the press, Hollywood, the big union bosses, and the other powers that be.

However, the Christian who is trained in the Holy Scriptures should not be completely surprised at this state of affairs.  Saddened, yes.  Even horrified.  But not surprised.  For the Bible has made it clear that the last days would be marked by unprecedented levels of lies, violence, false religion, sexual perversion, lawlessness, and a zealous hatred for God and those who serve Him.

Furthermore, even in such a wicked arena, the Christian need not be cowed.  Ours is not to whine and hunker down nor is it to just turn up the volume of our “contemporary Christian music” and act as if these evils are not, in fact, on the loose.  No, our duty remains the same as that proscribed for believers of all eras, all locales, all situations.  We are to put on the armor of God; wield well the sword of the Spirit; pray without ceasing; and confidently, joyfully enter into the fray.

It's time to stop the whining -- whining that these days are not like the good old days of yore. And it's time to stop the pining -- pining for the rapture (a deliverance I very much believe in, by the way) or even the delights of our future state. Yes, of course; heaven should be a huge motivation for us. But it's a motivation for us to invest our lives for Christ now rather than twiddling our time away until then.

Rejecting both the whining and the pining leaves us then the noble and adventurous option -- shining. Specifically, shining the light, love and truth of Christ all around us.

Christians are called (and, praise God, we are also fully equipped) to a humble, heaven-anticipating lifestyle – one that involves a dedication to personal purity, Bible study, prayer, gratitude, joy, and a willingness to bear the banner of authentic holiness everywhere it is needed.  That includes the family. That includes the church, the neighborhood, social institutions. That includes the marketplace.  That includes the arts.  And, yes, that includes politics.

Has the Tipping Moment Arrived?

This morning as I was working on the monthly letter for Vital Signs Ministries up at my branch office (the Panera's on West Maple), I couldn't help but hear the conversation of a group of a few men sitting near me. And I was quite interested in what they were talking about. 

I've seen these guys there often and exchanged pleasantries from time to time. After all, we tend to sit at the same tables which are only a couple of feet away. And whatever talk I've noticed from these guys in the past has tended along the lines of weather, home projects, local business gossip (including union affairs), and the Huskers.

But today it was politics. And specifically, it was about changes of mind about the political parties. I got the definite impression that I was overhearing Democrats who were getting ready to leave their party...or perhaps who already had bolted. For instance, I heard them laugh at an unkind joke about Deb Fischer but the subsequent conversation revealed that none of them were going to vote for her opponent, Bob Kerrey. Their remarks about him were downright brutal.

Next the talk shifted to how extremely well Mitt Romney had fared at last night's Al Smith dinner in New York. They all loved his performance, thought his jokes were far funnier than Obama's, and thought the barbs within Romney's jokes were much more to the point.

Then one of the guys brought up Obama's support the other night of Planned Parenthood and how it disgusted him. Another one said, "Well, what do you expect from a guy who's voted against stopping even partial-birth abortion?" They all seemed to agree that was beyond the pale.

Sure, this table talk is just one incident but I don't think it's an isolated one. When you read about the change in the poll numbers, see the difference in the crowd numbers between the candidates, learn about other examples where Obama's extremism and incompetence have turned people off -- it's pretty easy to feel a surge of optimism about a change in direction for the country.

But we've still got a long way to go. So keep praying. Keep telling people the truth. Put up the yard signs and take other ways to support the right candidates overcome the liberal media in these final weeks.

Romney's Worst Debate Whiff Was on Planned Parenthood

Commenting on last Tuesday's debate and the remarkable way in which Barack Obama wrapped himself in the banner of abortion's mega-corporation, Planned Parenthood, is pro-life researcher Michael J. New. However, he also underscores how Mitt Romney frittered away a key opportunity. I print New's remarks below but I add to them this personal warning; namely, if this is the best we can expect from Romney on the critical cause of the sanctity of life, we're in a sad way.

True enough, a Romney presidency wouldn't be nearly as bad for the pro-life cause as another ghastly Obama term would be (include the issues of marriage and religious freedom in the mix too), but Republicans and moral-minded independents must resolve now to push Romney and all other Republicans extremely hard on these matters.

Anyhow, here's Professor New's comments:

As has been noted in this space, federal funding for Planned Parenthood took on a surprisingly prominent role during Tuesday’s presidential debate. On four separate occasions, President Obama criticized Governor Romney for pledging to defund Planned Parenthood. President Obama even promoted the claim that Planned Parenthood does mammograms, recently exposed by NRO for the falsehood that it is. All of this was certainly not coincidental. The Obama campaign’s internal research obviously must show that Planned Parenthood funding appeals to a segment of voters.

Mitt Romney seemed content to avoid the issue. He defended himself on contraception, stating that “every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” However, when it came to federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Romney could have used the test for federal programs he introduced in the first debate, and said that subsidizing the nation’s largest abortion provider is not so critical it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. He could have added that this is especially the case considering that there are allegations that Planned Parenthood has misused Medicaid funds, and that the organization is under congressional investigation for a range of potentially criminal misdeeds.

Romney’s reluctance to engage President Obama on Planned Parenthoood funding should be of interest to pro-lifers. The LiveAction sting videos and other pro-life efforts have succeeded in tarnishing Planned Parenthood reputation in conservative circles, but unfortunately, Planned Parenthood’s reputation remains solid elsewhere. But pro-lifers can still take heart: The fact that federal funding for Planned Parenthood is now a salient issue during Presidential debates is good evidence of pro-life progress.

("The Surprising Prominence of Planned Parenthood" by Michael J. New at NRO's The Corner)

Uh, I Guess the Networks Forgot to Mention These Stories.

Along with today's other Vital Signs Blog posts, here's a rundown of some of the important news and commentary that the mainstream media will not, trust me, be bringing to your attention.

* Remember those surprisingly improved jobless numbers that came out last week -- those numbers that the media joyfully trumpeted as being "proof" that President Obama was finally turning the economy right-side up? Well, as you may know by now, it turned out the numbers were better only because California had failed to fully reveal their jobless claims. And now we learn that the bureaucrat who dramatically under-reported those unemployment claims was one Marty Morgenstern, a Democrat who has contributed to Barack Obama in the past. Surprised? I didn't think so.

* Homosexuals are celebrating yesterday's momentous ruling by the U.S appeals court in New York which struck down as unconstitutional a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act and declared for the first time that homosexuals are a minority group deserving of special protection from discrimination under the Constitution.

"America is in decline; fewer people are working; more are in poverty; economic growth is stagnant at best; more Americans than ever believe that our best days are behind us. But one thing in America is booming: welfare. Especially federal welfare." (Read the rest of John Hinderaker's excellent PowerLine column here.)

* "In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been.  Here’s the upshot:  Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95).  That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year." (Wow. "The 7-Eleven Presidency" by Jeffrey Anderson over at The Weekly Standard is an eye-opening one, indeed.)

* You'd never guess this from the pronounced presence of homosexual celebrities, the number of homosexual characters on TV, or the powerful influence homosexual activists seem to have in the courts, the education establishment, government bureaucracies, and on the political agenda of the Democrat Party, but the latest findings are that the "LGBT population" is only 3.4% of Americans.

* About all that pink gear being displayed by the NFL in it's stated goal to help raise breast cancer awareness -- I'm guessing you're not aware that only 5% of the sales from the NFL's pink-themed items are actually being donated to the American Cancer Society. The NFL (already wealthy beyond imagination) is pocketing the rest.

Today's Posts

Yes, An Abortion Extremist is Running for President

Here's One Liberal Newspaper That's Had More Than Enough of Obama

Obama Didn't Save GM, You Did. And Did You Get a Car Out of the Deal?

Will the Benghazi Lies Bring Down Obama?

Obama, Planned Parenthood Just Can't Stop Lying About Mammograms

Mr. Obama, When Will the "Change" Kick In?

Yes, An Abortion Extremist is Running for President

Quin Hillyer writes in the American Spectator about this clip,

 A new SuperPac called Women Speak Out, affiliated with the Susan B. Anthony List (both organizations are deserving of support), released yesterday the single most powerful pro-life ad I've ever seen. 

The ad is slated to run in the Hampton Roads, VA area, to start with. In my humble opinion, it needs to run in selected places nationwide (and surely will do so if the funds are forthcoming). 

The background: In Illinois, Barack Obama voted four times against a bill that would have provided protections to babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions. Here was his quote explaining what he was opposing: " If that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there's, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming up limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?" 

Well, uh, yes. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for a second physician, in addition to the (failed) abortionist, take a look to see if the child is still alive, rather than just relying on the "doctor" who, after all, just tried to kill it. 

Anyway, there are a whole lot of such survivors of attempted abortions, many of whom are visible on various You Tube videos here. The new ad has a clip from one such survivor, the beautiful Melissa Ohden, who also can be seen here, in a CBN interview. 

Pro-lifers all over the country are (and should be) working to make the new ad go viral. I think it is breathtaking.

Here's One Liberal Newspaper That's Had More Than Enough of Obama

It's a most remarkable editorial.

First of all because it endorses Mitt Romney for President in such an eloquent, effective and comprehensive way. Comprehensive, indeed. The editorial is perhaps 4 times longer than a normal newspaper editorial column.

But second of all, this editorial strongly endorsing Romney is remarkable because it comes from the New York Observer, a weekly newspaper which has always leaned center-liberal. It endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.

I print several excerpts from the piece below.

A candidate has emerged from the rough and tumble of the primaries with his dignity intact. The system has produced not a demagogue but a manager, a candidate whose experience is rooted in the pragmatism of the business world rather than the ideology of partisan politics.

That candidate is Mitt Romney…

The Observer endorses Mr. Romney’s candidacy and urges readers to support him.

Four years ago, Barack Obama captured the imagination of many Americans with his thrilling message of change…America supported that candidate (as did this newspaper), but his presidency, so filled with promise and potential, has failed to deliver the change America needs…

Class warfare might be a successful strategy for cobbling together 270 electoral votes. But it’s not the way to unite a divided nation.

The president comes to town on a Monday, takes our money, shakes our hands and tells us how much he values the CEOs and innovators of New York. And then on Tuesday, he turns around and refers to business leaders as fat cat bankers whose success was created by the sweat of others. That’s not a friend. That’s not a leader. That’s a politician.

Mitt Romney stands out because—unlike so many candidates in the past—he understands how to build businesses, create efficiencies, make tough deals and carefully consider divergent viewpoints. America needs a strong leader, a practical leader. Mr. Romney knows full well that it would be a tragic mistake to simply assume that the United States will continue to be the world’s economic powerhouse simply because that’s what we’ve been for decades.

America earned its global prominence because of the nation’s culture of work and individual freedom. That’s why immigrants came here and continue to come here—not because they seek a handout, but because they want a chance to work and to create and to innovate. In today’s competitive economy, the country needs competitors, not class-war crybabies…

While we admire Mr. Obama, we believe he squandered an opportunity to bring positive change to Washington—and what change he did bring will burden future generations. We continue to rack up debt, buy services we cannot afford and allow unfunded liabilities to continue to grow. This has to end.

Rather than reimagining government’s role in society and the economy by embracing the courageous alternatives proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission two years ago, Mr. Obama turned to neo-New Deal policies. Rather than building creative partnerships with the private sector, the president chose to demonize the successful. Rather than strengthen the nation’s relationship with Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a friend than a burden…

At the macro level, Mr. Romney could not be more clear: Job creation—not what he memorably called “trickle-down government”—must be Washington’s priority. That position stands in remarkable contrast to Mr. Obama’s priorities when he took office, as he used his mandate to ram through Obamacare, the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.

But Mr. Romney knows that the key to job creation lies not in Washington, but on both Wall Street and Main Street, where the creativity of capitalism and the vision of risk-takers can chart a new course for millions who have seen their prospects dim over the last four years. Bill Clinton said that those who work hard and play by the rules should be assured of a bright future. But the last four years have seen millions of hard workers consigned to the unemployment line and some 46 million become dependent on food stamps—up from 31 million in 2008…

Credit where it is due: under President Obama, the world’s master terrorist met his demise at the business end of American weaponry.

Other than that undeniable achievement, Mr. Obama’s conduct of foreign policy and national security has been incoherent and ineffective, as the continuing and ever-changing saga of the terrorist murder of U.S. diplomats in Libya demonstrates.

But for so many New Yorkers, the most disconcerting failure of the Obama years has been the nation’s deteriorating relationship with Israel. He foolishly sought to create strategic separation between Washington and Jerusalem, believing that this would somehow impress the Arab world’s dictators and demagogues. Precisely why this would be in the national interest remains a mystery—in any case, the shift was a strategic disaster…

The United States simply cannot afford another four years of weak leadership. The genius of American capitalism and the moral authority of American foreign policy must be restored.

Mitt Romney has a plan to do both. He has the credentials to restore the economy and to defend American values in a hostile world. He has the skills to help create jobs and a brighter future for our country.

This election is a true turning point for the next generation. Mitt Romney is the change the nation needs. And he is the change New York needs.

Obama Didn't Save GM, You Did. And Did You Get a Car Out of the Deal?

In the second presidential debate, Mr. Obama attacked early on, saying, “Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Note to Obama fans: GM did go bankrupt – filing for Chapter 11 protection against its creditors on June 1, 2009. It’s what happened next that the president can take credit for – a handout of $49.5 billion in taxpayer money to GM, some $27 billion of which remains outstanding, and another $17 billion to its financial arm Ally Financial, which still owes $14.7 billion.

In other words, Obama didn’t save General Motors; American taxpayers did, with an assist from the Federal Reserve. While liberals rant about the bailouts of Wall Street, it is worthwhile noting that of the $417 billion in TARP funds spent to stabilize the economy, only $65 billion has yet to be repaid – and more than half of that is owed by GM and Chrysler. The latest TARP report from the Congressional Budget Office says that the government invested nearly $80 billion in those two auto giants and that taxpayers are still on the hook for roughly $37 billion.

In the same report, the CBO projects that handouts to Wall Street firms will ultimately net the government a cool $11 billion profit. They say the auto industry, on the other hand, will never pay back taxpayers. According to the congressional bean counters, $20 billion is gone for good.

Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain...

Infuriated yet? Well, hold on. Because the story is far from over. Zip on over to Liz Peek's excellent article in the Fiscal Times and finish reading "Obama’s Auto Bailout Was Really a Hefty Union Payoff." 

And pass it on.

Will the Benghazi Lies Bring Down Obama?

It is now obvious that the U.S. government's original story about the Benghazi consulate attack, delivered by its two heaviest hitters, the president and secretary of state, was false, and, more importantly, that it was intended to deceive.  How can Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton outrun the scandal that now chases them, a scandal that makes Watergate look like cheating at tiddlywinks?  As if "Fast and Furious" weren't enough, the administration now gives America "Slow and Spurious."

Read the rest of this detailed, devastating review by Daren Jonescu over at American Thinker, "Benghazi: Emperor Obama's Waterloo?" 

A remarkable read, indeed.

Obama, Planned Parenthood Just Can't Stop Lying About Mammograms

Following Barack Obama's lies at the 2nd debate last Tuesday night, it's appropriate to repeat this post from September 7th.

The Great Planned Parenthood Mammogram Scam Exposed...by the Obama Administration?

Casey Mattox from the Alliance Defense Fund has written an absolutely first-rate article exposing the deliberate lies of Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama, and Democrats everywhere, about mammograms.

This is most definitely pass around material.

A deliberate effort is underway to rebrand Planned Parenthood as an integral provider of healthcare services, without which untold millions of women would lack basic medical care, or so the story goes. Thus, whenever any effort is made to cut off funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider and stalwart financier of leftist politicians, we’re told there is a “war on women.”

But it’s not a “war on women” when a state simply places a higher priority on funds for true health services that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform Take, for example, mammograms.

Yes, mammograms. Perhaps there is no greater falsehood than the deceitful, and largely successful, attempt to persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. It doesn’t.

When the Komen Foundation announced in February that it would no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood—partly due to the fact that Planned Parenthood does not directly provide mammograms - its ideological and political supporters sprang into action. They decried Komen’s decision to eliminate funding for this imagined provider of mammograms. Planned Parenthood’s Executive Director, Cecile Richards, , made the claim. So did President Obama. And an unsuspecting public was led to believe that such bold claims, by people who should know, must be true.

No matter that phone calls to Planned Parenthood from Live Action demonstrated clearly that this was not the case: Obama had spoken. And the president’s campaign together with Planned Parenthood’s ads continue to beat this drum (almost as if they were coordinated), building off the earlier confusion to frighten voters about the prospect of a Romney administration cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood’s “cancer screenings.”

Anytime someone suggests to you that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, I encourage you to share with them this letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services demonstrating that it’s untrue. [The link to the Pdf copy of the government's letter can be found in the article itself -- follow the link given above.] No Planned Parenthood clinic in the country is authorized to perform mammograms. If they are nevertheless performing them, they are violating federal law.

Under the federal Mammogram Quality Standards Act, administered by HHS, “[n]o facility may conduct an examination or procedure…involving mammography” without a certification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While a 2004 amendment to this law permits some states to also authorize mammography facilities, these certificates are still issued under the authority of the FDA, and the FDA records all certificates and investigates facilities holding such certifications. In short, there is no uncertainty: if Planned Parenthood could perform mammograms, the FDA (and HHS) would know it.

When President Obama and other Planned Parenthood partisans were making their mammogram claims, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a Freedom of Information Act request to seek any certificates held by any Planned Parenthood clinic or affiliate in the country. The response from President Obama’s own HHS is that no such certificates exist. No Planned Parenthood affiliate in the nation possesses the necessary certification to perform mammograms under federal law. Subsequent e-mails to the department further confirmed this fact…

Some Planned Parenthood clinics may provide much less effective manual breast exams. And some encourage women to perform self-exams, which breast cancer organizations like the Komen Foundation actually discourage as counterproductive to women’s health. And, in some cases, Planned Parenthood employees may tell a woman she should go get a mammogram from one of the public facilities that could have provided one to her in the first place. But in order to get a mammogram, a woman needs to go to someplace other than Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood and the politicians it supports must persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood is a full-service women’s health provider—a critical part of our health infrastructure—in order to keep the spigot of taxpayer dollars open. And so continues the deliberate campaign to deceive the public into believing the falsehood that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms for women who otherwise wouldn’t have them.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform mammograms. And President Obama’s own administration agrees. Perhaps with this lie exposed, we can now have a serious discussion about the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and its political allies.

Mr. Obama, When Will the "Change" Kick In?

Here's a particularly level-headed, effective political clip from RightChange.com. I'd suggest you pass it on via Facebook, e-mail contacts, and so on.

Today's Posts

The Abortion President: Serving Planned Parenthood, Not America

Debate #2 Wrap

The Abortion President: Serving Planned Parenthood, Not America

After reading about Barack Obama wrapping himself last night not in the American flag but rather in the bloody banner of Planned Parenthood, Claire and I felt it an especially relevant ministry this morning to stand in front of our local Planned Parenthood abortion mill to pray, to present opposition and to offer life-giving alternatives to PP clients.

Mr. President, your economic policies have been a disaster. Your foreign policy has been inept, cowardly and disgracefully unjust. But what most moves me to oppose your reelection is your despotic trampling on religious freedom and your evil zealotry concerning abortion.

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20)

Debate #2 Wrap

Among the items you might want to check out to determine where the race sits after the 2nd presidential debate, here are some of the most enlightening.

* The liberal "moderator" certainly showed her hand last night -- and it was a very heavy hand at that: interrupting Mitt Romney 28 times (only 9 with Obama), giving Obama 9% more time, actively joining the President's side on Libya, and helping out Obama in several other ways.

* On this same matter, see "Obama's Candy" by George Neumayr over at American Spectator.

* Here's a Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters in Nevada who, after the 2nd debate, say they now support Mitt Romney.

* "Question by Question, Romney’s Night" by John O’Sullivan at NRO.

* "Once Again, Obama’s Record Wins It for Romney" by David Harsanyi at Human Events.

* "Obama Went Aggressive – and Looked Offensive" by Janet Daley at the Telegraph.

So he decided to make up for being too passive last time. That was predictable enough. In fact, everybody and his wife was predicting that Barack Obama would go on the offence for this one and that's exactly what he did. But there is an important difference between between being on the offensive and being offensive which his advisers seemed to have missed. Time and again, he interrupted both Romney and the chairman. He may not have sniggered and laughed out loud but there was definitely an air of the Joe Biden playbook here.

It was a messier debate all around with questions coming from unexpected (and some will argue, tangential) directions. But the important fact was that Romney won on points and on manner. He remained calm and fluent – even under provocation – and seemed completely secure in his grasp of detail. Obama was defensive (understandably perhaps because he is the incumbent having to defend his record) but more significantly, he did not seem to have the command of fact that his opponent had. The President often hesitated and appeared to lose focus – a trait which has been noted before when he speaks off the cuff. In what looked like desperation in the final moments, he fell back on a reminder of the infamous Romney "47 per cent" gaffe. This looked cheap, considering that it is now very old news which has been buried by Romney's later performances...

* Here's a clip from, of all places MSNBC, which shows a panel of "undecided voters" talking after the debate. And what they have to say isn't good news for Barack Obama at all.

* From Dick Morris' morning column, "Romney Won the 2nd Debate" --

By scoring big on the economy, gas prices, and Libya, Romney continued his victorious string of debate wins. He looked more presidential than Obama did and showed himself to be an articulate, capable, attractive, compassionate leader with sound ideas.

Obama came over as boorish and Biden-esque. He did not learn from his Vice President's mistakes. When a president gets into a bar room brawl, he loses his dignity and his aura, key assets for an incumbent. Romney was polite but firm. Obama seemed quarrelsome, frustrated, nasty, and cranky.

But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive…

Today's Posts

"Flexibility" Now: Radio Free Europe Ends Broadcasts to Russia

Obama's Jobs Results? Add 1, Subtract 10

The Latest Volume of "When Swing Was King" Tops the Charts!

Fact Check: Planned Parenthood's Claim That Only 3% of It's "Business" Is Abortion

Alas, These Were Once American Companies

"Flexibility" Now: Radio Free Europe Ends Broadcasts to Russia

Remember Barack Obama being captured on tape last spring assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he (Obama) will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election?

Well, it appears that the Obama administration has shown some "flexibility" to their Communist friends even before that.

Here, from the Washington Free Beacon, is the story on Radio Free Europe's sudden end to broadcasts to Russia.

America’s broadcast voice in Russia will soon be silenced following Moscow’s ratification of a new law that will force a legendary broadcasting company to abandon the Russian airwaves.

Radio Liberty (RL), a division of the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe (RFE), recently fired a large portion of its staff after the passage of a Russian law prohibiting foreign-owned media outlets from broadcasting on AM frequencies.

The unexpected mass layoffs came as a shock to RL journalists and Russian human rights activists alike, and spurred accusations that the Obama administration is kowtowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin as he seeks to silence the democratic voice that helped topple communism.

“The timing of it, the way it was done, and the lack of explanation” sends an unfortunate message, said David Kramer, president of the human rights organization Freedom House. “It creates the impression, whether intended or not, that the U.S. is pulling out [of Russia], and that’s not the impression we want to leave.”

On Nov. 10, RL, known by locals as Radio Svoboda, will cease its AM broadcasts after nearly 60 years on the airwaves...

Soon after the radio measure was approved, RL axed the majority of its veteran reporters, radio hosts, and editors—a move viewed as suspicious to many on the inside. A handful of additional RL staffers quit in protest following the firings.

Experts fear that the disappearance of RL’s independent voice from the airwaves will allow Putin’s regime to further tighten its grip on the flow of information in Russia.

“I think they have already destroyed the radio so much loved and followed by those Russian listeners who stand for freedom and democracy,” Mario Corti, a former director of Radio Liberty’s Russian Service, told the Free Beacon. “They are lying to the media by playing down the scale of the firings.”...

The BBG and RFE’s leadership are acting in a shortsighted manner, others maintain. A pro-democracy presence is needed more than ever in an increasingly authoritarian Russia, these experts say.

“They’re making budget cuts and they don’t know much about the region,” said one former RFE executive who requested anonymity. “They’re just political appointees.”

RL’s overseers in D.C. “are not Russia specialists or journalists,” griped another source familiar with the station’s operations. “It’s really a blow against the American radio presence and American media presence at a time when Putin is already doing all he can to undermine Western influence.”

A “perfect storm” is brewing in Russia as Putin’s regime cracks down on Western freedoms, the RFE source warned.

“This is capitulating to Putin, and Putin is very sophisticated and knows how to work the Americans,” the former executive said. “The reaction [by the Obama administration] has been too limp.”

“It doesn’t surprise me in the least that there’s been little pushback from the administration because they don’t want to piss off the Russians,” the source said, pointing to President Barack Obama’s policy of a “reset” with Russia...

Obama's Jobs Results? Add 1, Subtract 10

Here's an enlightening new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. 

The Latest Volume of "When Swing Was King" Tops the Charts!

It appears that our "When Swing Was King" ministry just won't slow down. Indeed, our latest volume is generating what might be the warmest, most enthusiastic response yet.

The visiting, the stories, the smiles and laughter, the lilting movement as the music plays, the singing along, the applause, the memories shared, the embraces, the expressions of deep appreciation and "please come back soon" -- it's all quite amazing. And every time we present the program, we feel profoundly grateful to God for letting us be a part of such a wholesome, winsome and beneficial service to the residents of nursing homes and other senior facilities.

The latest playlist?

1) Glenn Miller Orchestra (featuring Ray Eberle)
"Stairway to the Stars"

2) Duke Ellington Orchestra
"Take the A Train"

3) Tommy Dorsey Orchestra (featuring Frank Sinatra)
"There Are Such Things"

4) Benny Goodman Quartet
"After You've Gone"

5) The Andrews Sisters
"I'll Be With You In Apple Blossom Time"

6) Harry James Orchestra
"Sleepy Lagoon"

7) Guy Lombardo Orchestra
"Once In a While"

8) Dooley Wilson
"As Time Goes By"

9) Jimmy Dorsey Orchestra
"So Rare"

10) Vaughn Monroe Orchestra
"Ballerina"

11) Artie Shaw Orchestra
"Dancing In the Dark"

12) Les Brown Orchestra
"Younger Than Springtime"

13) Judy Garland
"Over the Rainbow"

Fact Check: Planned Parenthood's Claim That Only 3% of It's "Business" Is Abortion

You may want to use your Zoom" feature to make sure you can read the important information from this chart. The data, by the way, comes straight from PP itself and it's research/public relations ally, the Guttmacher Institute.

Alas, These Were Once American Companies

Another evidence that I'm getting old?

Son, I can remember when Budweiser, Lipton Tea, 7-Eleven, Gerber baby food, Firestone tires, John Hancock Insurance, the Chrysler Building, and a whole lot more...were American companies.

Times have certainly changed.

Budweiser is now owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev, a Belgian and Brazilian company with headquarters in Belgium.

Good Humor and Lipton (along with Breyers Ice Cream, Klondike Bar, Vaseline, Hellman's mayonnaise, Pond's cold cream, Popsicle, Albert VO5, and a lot more) are owned by the huge British and Dutch corporation, Unilever.

7-Eleven is owned by a Japanese company, Seven & I Holdings Co.

Iconic American magazines Woman’s Day and Car & Driver are owned by Hachette Filipacchi Médias, a French multinational which is the largest magazine publisher in the world.

Gerber now belongs to the Swiss mega-corporation, Nestlé. (As do Cheerios, Shredded Wheat, Taster's Choice coffee, Carnation condensed milk, Coffee-Mate, Stouffer's frozen foods, Tombstone Pizza, DiGiorno Pizza, Butterfinger candy bar, Alpo dog food, Purina products, and a whole lot more.)

Firestone is now part of Bridgestone Corp, a Japanese firm.

Columbia Pictures is now the property of Japan's mega-corporation, Sony.

Dial Soap is owned by a German company, Henkel KGaA.

Trader Joe’s is owned by a family trust of German billionaire Theo Albrecht.

John Hancock Insurance is owned by Manulife Financial Corporation, a Canadian company headquartered in Toronto.

Frigidaire belongs to Electrolux, a Swedish home appliance company.

Holiday Inn is part of InterContinental Hotels Group which is based in Great Britain.

And the historic art deco Chrysler Building, a landmark of the Manhattan skyline since 1930? Well, 90% of it is now owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Council.

Like I said, times have certainly changed.

Today's Posts

Obama Wages War on Catholicism...And On Me Too!

Administration Incompetence? Or Administration Lies?

Want Better Grades from Your Kids? Dope 'Em Up!

Look Out, The Unions Are Moving Into Nursing Homes

Did You Miss These?

Kristol: "Liberalism Is Tired, Depressed, and Mugged by Reality"

Obama Wages War on Catholicism...And On Me Too!

“Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause.” (Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame, 2009.)

For this he was hailed by the president of Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins. 

Three years later the priest sued Obama for breaking his vow.

William A. Donohue's article at Crisis is titled "Obama Wages War on Catholicism." But here's an evangelical Christian who recommends the article as a must-read. Check it out.

Administration Incompetence? Or Administration Lies?

"There are only two possibilities that can explain this senseless debacle. Either it reflects gross incompetence and irresponsibility on the part of the president and many others who answer to him, or it also represents this along with an egregious disinformation campaign aimed at concealing foreign policy failures to diminish known terrorist threats under his watch."

Here, from Forbes Magazine's Larry Bell, is the most succinct, enlightening review to date of the Benghazi coverup. Be sure and read it. Be sure to pass it along.

Want Better Grades from Your Kids? Dope 'Em Up!

Here's a whole new (and terribly frightening) take on the "drugs in school" problem.

When Dr. Michael Anderson hears about his low-income patients struggling in elementary school, he usually gives them a taste of some powerful medicine: Adderall.

The pills boost focus and impulse control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although A.D.H.D is the diagnosis Dr. Anderson makes, he calls the disorder “made up” and “an excuse” to prescribe the pills to treat what he considers the children’s true ill — poor academic performance in inadequate schools.

“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”...

Dr. Anderson’s instinct, he said, is that of a “social justice thinker” who is “evening the scales a little bit.” He said that the children he sees with academic problems are essentially “mismatched with their environment” — square pegs chafing the round holes of public education. Because their families can rarely afford behavior-based therapies like tutoring and family counseling, he said, medication becomes the most reliable and pragmatic way to redirect the student toward success…

Some experts see little harm in a responsible physician using A.D.H.D. medications to help a struggling student. Others — even among the many like Dr. Rappaport who praise the use of stimulants as treatment for classic A.D.H.D. — fear that doctors are exposing children to unwarranted physical and psychological risks. Reported side effects of the drugs have included growth suppression, increased blood pressure and, in rare cases, psychotic episodes…

The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies these medications as Schedule II Controlled Substances because they are particularly addictive. Long-term effects of extended use are not well understood, said many medical experts. Some of them worry that children can become dependent on the medication well into adulthood, long after any A.D.H.D. symptoms can dissipate…

 On the Rocafort family’s kitchen shelf in Ball Ground, Ga., next to the peanut butter and chicken broth, sits a wire basket brimming with bottles of the children’s medications, prescribed by Dr. Anderson: Adderall for Alexis, 12; and Ethan, 9; Risperdal (an antipsychotic for mood stabilization) for Quintn and Perry, both 11; and Clonidine (a sleep aid to counteract the other medications) for all four, taken nightly.

Quintn began taking Adderall for A.D.H.D. about five years ago, when his disruptive school behavior led to calls home and in-school suspensions. He immediately settled down and became a more earnest, attentive student — a little bit more like Perry, who also took Adderall for his A.D.H.D.

When puberty’s chemical maelstrom began at about 10, though, Quintn got into fights at school because, he said, other children were insulting his mother. The problem was, they were not; Quintn was seeing people and hearing voices that were not there, a rare but recognized side effect of Adderall. After Quintn admitted to being suicidal, Dr. Anderson prescribed a week in a local psychiatric hospital, and a switch to Risperdal…

 Despite Quintn’s experience with Adderall, the Rocaforts decided to use it with their 12-year-old daughter, Alexis, and 9-year-old son, Ethan. These children don’t have A.D.H.D., their parents said. The Adderall is merely to help their grades, and because Alexis was, in her father’s words, “a little blah.”

”We’ve seen both sides of the spectrum: we’ve seen positive, we’ve seen negative,” the father, Rocky Rocafort, said. Acknowledging that Alexis’s use of Adderall is “cosmetic,” he added, “If they’re feeling positive, happy, socializing more, and it’s helping them, why wouldn’t you? Why not?”…

From Alan Schwarz, "Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School," New York Times.)

Look Out, The Unions Are Moving Into Nursing Homes

How would you feel if you discovered people like these were the ones responsible for taking care of your Grandma in the nursing home?

That's right. The SEIU is fast moving into the nursing home business. Lord have mercy.

Here's the story.

Did You Miss These?

Looking for an interesting read? The following articles certainly fit the bill.

* Was Britain less prepared for World War II because of the BBC's muzzling of Winston Churchill? (Nick Robinson, "Winston Churchill's Bitter Battle with the BBC," The Telegraph)

* The Daily Mail is one of the only media outlets reporting on the new Hadcrut 4 data which suggests that global warming stopped 16 years ago!

* The Benghazi coverup "is more than a scandal; it is a symptom. This is an administration that instinctively turns to any artifice -- any desperate, dubious claim -- rather than talk about an ongoing, escalating global conflict with radical Islamist groups." Michael Gerson's column is definitely not to be missed.

* For those who refuse to accept that Christianity creates a vastly more just, compassionate, and healthy culture than those created by Islam or Hinduism, I submit this Daily Mail article about the terrifying world of child brides.

* "Tyndale publishes Bibles. But that doesn’t make it a religious endeavor. Not in the federal government’s book. Not as of August 1, anyway. That was the day that the HHS mandate — a regulation further defining the health-care legislation that then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was right to tell us Congress would be passing before anyone knew what it actually contained — went into effect. Family businesses like Tyndale — which happen to be run by religious folk who want to live their lives true to what they believe — don’t qualify for any kind of 'accommodation' or exemption." (Sigh. It's just one more of many sad tales about how ObamaCare is flat-out stealing religious freedom from American citizens. Read more about it here at NRO from Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Obama’s Bible Issue.")

Kristol: "Liberalism Is Tired, Depressed, and Mugged by Reality"

Obama is depressed because today’s liberalism is depressing. Obama is world-weary because modern liberalism is world-weary. Hope and change was just campaign talk. The real existing liberal president lives in an atmosphere of reduced hope and hostility to needed change...

The dreams of liberalism’s fathers don’t move today’s liberals. Whether in manic or depressed mode, they know liberalism’s been mugged by reality—though they dare not acknowledge it. Has Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech been overtaken, to say the least, by facts on the ground in 2012 in Benghazi? Don’t acknowledge the facts. Does all the talk about a green energy future seem empty and ridiculous? Keep talking the talk—while also taking credit for increases in oil and gas production you did nothing to make possible and that you, deep down, find distasteful. Is there a need for real tax reform? Ignore it, and just let the Bush tax cuts expire. Do decades-old programs like Social Security and Medicare need to be changed? Just attack the reforms Romney and Ryan have proposed. Roe v. Wade? Sacred scripture.

To watch Obama and Biden on stage is to watch a liberalism that has lost its nerve, a liberalism that is the enervated and excitable residue of an earlier, energetic doctrine…

But a decadent liberalism can do real and lasting damage. The United States can survive—the United States has survived—four years of weakness and drift. Four more years would be another matter. Obamacare institutionalized, defeat in Afghanistan, the Middle East in chaos, a Supreme Court unmoored from the Constitution—these would be the wages of four more years of Obama and Biden. The historic task of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is to bring home to Americans just how much damage could be done by another four years of a decadent liberalism—and to make the case for a conservatism neither enervated by an acceptance of decline nor made excitable by a fear of change, a conservatism that shows strength and confidence in defense of liberty.

(William Kristol, "Liberalism, Manic & Depressive" in the Weekly Standard)

Today's Posts

Religion & Politics: You Can't Get More Basic Than This

The Love of the Triune God Is Given to Man

Obama Worry -- Democrat Voter Numbers Are Dropping

Note to Media: Benghazi-Gate Is Greater Scandal Than Anything Nixon Could Dream

A Few "Don't Miss" Articles

Religion & Politics: You Can't Get More Basic Than This

From veteran missionary leader Doug Nichols:

When people ask you who you are voting for, rather than getting into an argument of personalities, it might be best to simply share your Christian worldview [explaining that] one party promotes the following:

1. Abortion (aggressive abortion even though many in the party are pro-life).

2. Gay marriage

3. Excessive spending and debt which causes inflation and massive job loss, especially hinders the poor.

4. Bigger Government and excessive taxation which results in much job loss.

while the other party promotes:

1. Pro-life.

2. Traditional marriage between one woman and one man.

3. Balanced budget, only spending what the government has, no debt.

4. Lower taxes, compassionate conservatives, and less government which helps the economy to provide more jobs.

Nuff said?

The Love of the Triune God Is Given to Man

Stuart Cunliffe, our friend and pro-life compatriot from Great Britain recently shared on his blog some profound and inspirational thoughts on the Trinity.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is a Trinity. In other words, there is only one God, but that one God is in three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. One God in three persons; three persons in one God.

Perhaps the most convincing reason for this is that God is love. The Bible doesn't say just that God loves, or that God commends love, but that God is love. Love has to have an object. God could not have existed alone. So before creation began, there were the three persons of the Godhead, loving each other.

As you go through the Bible, it's interesting to notice the ministry, if that's the right word, of each one.

All three were involved in creation. God the Father spoke the word. The second verse in the Bible says the Holy Spirit was there, hovering over the face of the waters. Of the Son of God, the Scripture says that all things in heaven and earth were created by Him; all things were created through Him and for Him (Col 1:16).

All three were involved in the crucifixion, for Heb 9:14 says that Christ through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.

And all three were involved in the resurrection. In John 2:19 - 21 Jesus said if they destroyed His body, He would raise it up in three days. Gal 1:1 says God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. And in some translations 1 Pet 3:18 gives us the idea that the Holy Spirit had a part too.

Now here's something amazing. If you are a committed Christian, did you know that it took all three persons of the Godhead to bring you to faith? It was the Holy Spirit who convicted you of sin, for John 16:8 says it is His ministry to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. It was God the Father who drew you to Christ, for Jesus said no man comes to Him except the Father draws him (John 6:44). And it was the Son of God who took you in and gave you eternal life.

If you're not yet a committed Christian, Jesus said "I am the door" (John 10:9). He's the way to God. Life without Him is empty. Life with him is abundant. Life with Him is what we were created for.  If you want the answer to your problems, come to Christ.

He's waiting.

Obama Worry -- Democrat Voter Numbers Are Dropping

Among the stories that the mainstream media refuses to report on is the dramatic reversals in voter registration. For instance, did you know that Republicans in Iowa now hold an 21,589 voter registration advantage over the Democrats? It's true.

“Three years and a half years of President Obama’s failed policies have left the Republican Party of Iowa stronger than ever,” said Republican Party of Iowa Chairman, A.J. Spiker. “Iowans are tired of broken promises, high unemployment and especially the way President Obama has been doling out taxpayer money to his friends and campaign donors.”

As Jim Geraghty points out with examples from other states, the trend towards Republicans is quite significant.

And here is a related story from Fox News:

An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it's down down 19.7 percent.

"It's understandable that enthusiasm is going to wane a little bit from that historic moment (in 2008)," says Michelle Diggles, the study co-author and senior policy adviser for Third Way. "You can only elect the first African-American president of this country once."

The dip in registration has been framed by some as the result of Republican efforts to suppress the vote - an accusation that Ohio Secretary of State John Husted, a Republican, categorically rejects.

"That's kind of a silly notion that removing deceased people and duplicate records from the roll has anything to do with voter suppression,” he said. "It actually has to do with voter integrity. They can't point to one legally registered voter that's actually been removed from the rolls."

Note to Media: Benghazi-Gate Is Greater Scandal Than Anything Nixon Could Dream

For over forty years now, the Watergate scandal — the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration — has been the sine qua non of American political malfeasance. It has been followed by myriad other “gates” affecting both parties but has never been superseded.

Until now.

Benghazi or Benghazigate, as some call it, is worse. Far worse. Incomparably worse.

Watergate caught numerous public officials lying, including the president of the United States, but Benghazigate has all that and more.

It involves the terrorist murder (not an electorally irrelevant burglary) of government officials, their reckless endangerment, the undermining of the Bill of Rights and free speech by our own administration in response to Islamist threats, and, ultimately, the complicity of that same administration, consciously or unconsciously, in the downfall of Western civilization.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media function as their more-than-willing accomplices in this downfall, in essence as Obama’s court eunuchs.

Sound excessive?

Hear me out…

That's the provocative introduction to Roger L. Simon's weekend blockbuster over at Pajamas Media. But it gets even better.

Read on.

A Few "Don't Miss" Articles

Claire had a tough night and is showing all the signs of coming down with the same cold/cough/sinus thing that I dealt with this last week, a condition that forced cancellation of a couple of social engagements last week and all of my weekend's duties: book club meeting, sermon and Sunday school class, the art show at the Johnson's, and a political meeting at Dolce Cafe.

But I awoke much improved and so, while Claire sleeps in, I'll get to a bit of blogging by briefly listing a few important articles you should check out.

1) Here's a quick dose of reality from Wesley J. Smith over at NRO for those who wishfully imagined Chief Justice John Roberts some kind of conservative genius for his vote FOR Obamacare. The fact is he did a very bad thing. Whether out of pressure, cowardice, or trying to be too clever for his (and the nation's) good, Robert's decision enshrined the most unconstitutional and damaging judicial action since Roe v Wade.

2) Remember Nancy Pelosi's insane declaration, "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it"? Well, that insanity was nevertheless forced on the American public by Democrats.  And now the guys over at Americans for Tax Reform have outlined the five worst taxes hidden in those thousands of pages of ObamaCare -- taxes that we will start paying this January 1st. Can you say, "Happy New Year, suckers?"

3) Following up on last Friday's post (What Was the "Obama Phone Lady" Talking About?), you might want to see how this humongous government handout program is "working" in just one state. Good grief.

4) Because of ever-encroaching government regulations and, of course, a lousy economy, it seems that banks can't afford to offer free checking accounts anymore. Sigh. That's yet another depressing thing to thank President Obama for.

5) "55 percent of small business owners would not start company today, blame Obama." (Washington Examiner article.)

6) Mona Charen is wondering why the Romney/Ryan campaign seems to be MIA -- at least on the television screens of the key swing state of Virginia. She then passes along some excellent ad ideas to the Republicans with themes that would play better than the ones they're currently using. Let's hope they're paying attention.