Terry McAuliffe Wants Abortion, No Matter What

Terry McAuliffe, the Clintonian liberal who ran the Democratic National Committee and who now wants to run the state of Virginia, is now on record as opposing basic safety and sanitation regulations for the abortion clinics in that state. Indeed, McAuliffe's zealotry for abortion is so extreme that he's promised to circumvent the law and the will of the people by using executive orders to protect abortion mills from meeting those basic health standards required of dentist offices, emergi-care clinics, and tattoo parlors.

And they say it's Republicans who are waging a war on women?

Dr. Susan Berry's story over at Breitbart quotes Steve Rossie of the Family Foundation: McAuliffe’s “reckless promise comes in the recent aftermath of the conviction of notorious Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell for killing babies after they survived botched abortions. Remember, it was then-Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge who ignored the law in that state requiring abortion center inspections that allowed Gosnell to go unnoticed for years, harming untold numbers of women and children.”

McAuliffe is running against an authentic pro-life advocate, Ken Cuccinelli, a fellow who has voted to overturn former Gov. Mark Warner’s veto of a partial-birth abortion ban, drafted Virginia’s parental consent law, led efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and demanded that the state’s abortion facilities meet the same health standards as other surgical centers.

Cuccinelli is running behind McAuliffe in the polls right now and could certainly use more prayers and more financial support. Here's his website.

Today's Posts

A Seed of Kindness

The Hypocrite-in-Chief: Obama's Selective Outrage Over Poisoned Children   

A Gun That Liberals Will Like?

Have You Asked Your Politicians to De-Fund ObamaCare...Lately?

Planned Parenthood: Maintaining Margaret's Meanness

A Seed of Kindness

H/T -- "This Three Minute Commercial Puts Full-Length Hollywood Films to Shame" (Neetzan Zimmerman, Gawker)

The Hypocrite-in-Chief: Obama's Selective Outrage Over Poisoned Children

The excerpts below are from Star Parker's excellent column, "Abortion Support Undermines Obama's Moral Leadership."

Whether we are talking about respect for a nation or for an individual, nothing undermines respect more than duplicity -- saying one thing and acting differently.

I think it is a big reason why President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech to the nation, in which he attempted to explain why he has proposed military action in Syria, fell so flat…

Earlier this year, Obama became the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America. He concluded his remarks to that group the same way he concluded his address to the nation about Syria, saying, "God bless you."

How can a president who appeals for God's blessing for America's largest abortion provider possibly be credible in justifying American military force abroad because of moral outrage?

If the use of chemicals to destroy children is what bothers this president, why does it not bother him that a growing percentage of abortions done in our nation are chemically induced using drugs? The most common is RU486, which became legal in 2000.

In 2008, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine, 32 percent of the early-term abortions performed in Planned Parenthood clinics, for which our president seeks God's blessing, were done using these abortion-inducing drugs…

 In June, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives -- sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., with 184 co-sponsors -- that would make abortion illegal after 20 weeks (five months). The legislation is called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The bill includes this language: "By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example, by recoiling."

The Obama administration wasted no time in issuing a statement noting opposition to this legislation and indicating, "If the president were presented with this legislation, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill."

Perhaps abstract arguments can take place regarding the status of the unborn child in very early stages of pregnancy. But after five months, as the pregnancy enters the third trimester, the living, human status of the unborn child is clear and obvious. It takes a true moral callousness to deny this.

This president not only sits by and allows wanton murder of unborn children. He supports and endorses it, using dubious arguments about women's health and "reproductive rights."

The light of liberty cannot shine if it is not fueled by the light of consistent moral principle…

A Gun That Liberals Will Like?

Guns? To progressives, guns are bad because, after all, they can kill people.

But abortion? To progressives, abortion is good because, after all, people in the womb can be killed without compunction.

Imagine then the schizophrenia progressives will experience when they meet the "abortion gun."

Kristan Hawkins and James Christophersen have the story here, "Shooting a Gun at Women’s Private Parts is a Big Deal." And it's a story that details the extreme dangers that so-called contraceptive devices pose both to babies and their moms.

Have You Asked Your Politicians to De-Fund ObamaCare...Lately?

When I talk to people about making their views known to their political representatives, I often hear something like "Oh yes, I signed one of those online petitions last year" or "He knows where I stand. I sent him a letter when he was elected."

That's fine but our political reps need to hear from us frequently. After all, we need to remember that they live in a very noisy environment. The voice of their constituency can easily be drowned out by the press, the TV networks, the talk radio programs, and the endless lineup of lobbyists showing up at their office door.  Therefore, your views need to be stated clearly...and re-stated with some regularity.

It is often suggested that citizens contact their representatives once a month (or once every two months) on issues that they are especially keen on. Is that too much? Not at all -- particularly if your call or letter has a new point or additional information from your last contact. Of course, your letter, call or e-mail may only register as a single digit in an ongoing tally of pros and cons, yet even that can be of extreme importance.

So, don't just make your opinions known to the guys you meet for coffee at the donut shop. Share them with those who can make a difference.

Case in point? I'm sending e-mails to my Congressman and Senators with a copy of the photograph below AND a link to John Fund's NRO article, "Congress’s Exemption from Obamacare." You can join me (in fact, I heartily encourage you to do so) by simply copying these two URL links and sending them to your representatives too. Let's go.

Planned Parenthood: Maintaining Margaret's Meanness

This past weekend Planned Parenthood celebrated the birthday of their founder, Margaret Sanger. And though Sanger was, as proven by her own writings, an alarmingly outspoken racist, elitist and eugenicist, the organization she started continues to honor her.

Worse still, however, is that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in the world, continues to apply Sanger's mean-spirited doctrines.

Amazing? Disgusting? Yes to both. But the most pressing question is why the American public doesn't know the truth about Sanger and the radical abortion business which Planned Parenthood has become.

And that's where you and I come in; namely, to awaken our friends and neighbors to those plain and terrible facts about Sanger and her mega-abortion corporation -- facts that the liberal media has kept well-hidden.

Here at Vital Signs Blog we frequently provide you with just the information you need for this task. For instance, among the recent posts you'll find of use are:

Planned Parenthood’s 3-Step Plan for Young Women

Here's 9 Things About Planned Parenthood Everyone Should Know

Despite Media Cover, Planned Parenthood's Scandals Are Hurting the Brand and

Democrats Still Throwing Money to Planned Parenthood.

And for more, you can scan all the posts which appear under the heading of "Planned Parenthood" on the right sidebar.

Today's Posts

We Get By with a Little Help from "When Swing Was King"

Sex-Selection Abortion Gets a Pass in the UK

Benghazi: It's Been A Year and Still No Straight Answers

More "Don't Miss" Articles

We Get By with a Little Help from "When Swing Was King"

It's been a tough week around here -- sad news, bad news, long hours, and
another week of coughing, as my Dad used to say, "my fool head off." But there were also several bright spots of fellowship that helped us immeasurably to stay above the week's circumstances. Like the Beatles, we do get by with a little help from our friends.

Sunday, for instance, we had lunch after church with Allen & Cindy Nelson. They have become very dear friends and it's always a delight and a profound encouragement to be with them. The next day we enjoyed an early lunch at Le Peeps with Tom and Lila Sharman. Tom owns Tesco Studios where I recorded "Vital Signs" and "Vital Signs Weekend" for KGBI all those many years and we hadn't gotten together for a long time. That was great too. And there were my usual early morning coffee conversations at Panera's with Dick Wilson and John Malek (Tuesday) and Pat Osborne (Thursday).

And not at all to be overlooked are the uplifting friendships we enjoy with the residents and staff of the senior living facilities where we so joyfully present our "When Swing Was King" programs. This week we have already enjoyed five such presentations and another one will be taking place at Immanuel Courtyard this afternoon at 2 o'clock.

We absolutely revel in the friendships we've established over the last 3 years but we're always making new friends too. And both provide tremendous uplift and energy to Claire and I -- even when we're experiencing tough weeks like this one. For the whole of "WSWK" isn't the music, pictures and commentary (as neat as those things all are) nor is it even the memories and pleasure of the "sentimental journey" back to the resident's youth. No, it's also the very present experience of conversations, remembered stories told to an interested audience, handshakes and hugs, prayers together, practice of the social graces, laughter and sometimes tears.

We do give a bit with "When Swing Was King." It takes a lot of hours to create each volume and it takes a lot of hours to present 13 shows every month throughout the Omaha area and a bit beyond (Council Bluffs, Ft. Calhoun, Ashland). But what we give really can't be compared to what we get by presenting it. Thank you, Lord.

By the way, here's the songlist from this particular volume. (We have 23 different volumes -- each one with 12 songs, interesting notes, and 250-280 photos.)

1) Glenn Miller Orchestra: "In the Mood"

2) The Andrews Sisters (Backed by the Bob Crosby Orchestra):

"Begin the Beguine"

3) Tommy Dorsey Orchestra (Vocals by Frank Sinatra):

"This Love of Mine"

4) Sammy Davis, Jr: "What Kind of Fool Am I?"

5) Artie Shaw Orchestra (Vocals by Helen Forrest): "They Say"

6) Larry Clinton Orchestra: "Dodgin' the Dean"

7) Ella Fitzgerald: "Isn't It Romantic?"

8) Vaughn Monroe Orchestra: "Ballerina"

9) Harry James Orchestra: "You Made Me Love You"

10) Rosemary Clooney: "Hey, There"

11) Freddy Martin Orchestra: "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes"

12) Bob Crosby Orchestra (Vocals by Dave Street):

"I Left My Heart at the Stage Door Canteen"

Sex-Selection Abortion Gets a Pass in the UK

Eighteen months ago the Daily Telegraph newspaper ran a superb piece of investigative journalism. Using a pregnant woman and an undercover journalist posing as her sister, doctors and nurses at numerous abortion clinics in England were asked whether they would sign the paperwork for a termination – on the grounds that the baby was a girl.

Having been told the real reason for wanting a termination, one doctor instinctively replied “that’s not fair. It used to, yeah, it’s like the female infanticide, isn’t it?” Nonetheless, despite the doctor’s hesitation, he deemed the mother ‘too young for pregnancy’ on the form instead.

Another medic simply said, “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination.”

(From Peter Smith's Mercator article, "Since when did abortion trump the rule of law?")

Wow. You would certainly guess these examples of lethal (and clearly illegal) discrimination would have sparked an outrage in the British public as well as government health and law enforcement officials.

Well…it didn't.

Indeed, the powers that be have not only decided to shut down any further investigations but even to avoid prosecuting the two cases that were publicized. The reason given? "Prosecuting could have a chilling effect on doctors carrying out lawful terminations."

This is so tragically typical in our post-Christian, post-rational era. Absolutely nothing can be allowed to interfere with the abortion industry lest it (gasp!) actually decrease the number of preborn kids being killed.

Unsafe, dirty conditions in abortion clinics? Uncaring, hurried, assembly line practices in the abortion mills? It's okay. Just don't think about it. Mega-abortion corporations like Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes found guilty of disdain for women, fraud, ripping off taxpayers, and other crimes? Ignore it. Pretend it's not really happening. Put your earphones on, turn up the volume, and kill some zombies on your smart phone. Do anything but acknowledge the horror represented by precious babies in their mother's wombs being scalded, poisoned, and cut up into pieces by greedy abortionists.

And, for the political powers in the UK, even when the evidence is clear that some of these babies are being destroyed simply because they are female, refuse to get involved. Let your fear of offending the Hindu community and, of course, the abortion zealotry of the left dictate your policies, rather than consider justice, the rule of law, or the sanctity of life.

Goodnight, civilization.

Benghazi: It's Been A Year and Still No Straight Answers

What we know about the attack in Benghazi one year after the fact is that it is an example of the Obama administration’s incompetence and mendacity. More worrisome still is what we don’t know…

Secretary Clinton may not have wanted to speak to the accountability panel; strangely, it also refused to interview those who did desire to share their testimony. The State Department inspector general’s office announced in May that it would investigate why the review board had “failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel.” The decision to willfully ignore State Department employees who were volunteering information about the murder of an American ambassador suggests that the board began with a conclusion and avoided any possible contact with evidence that might contradict that conclusion.

Then there is the great mystery about why Stevens and his team were in that dangerous city to begin with…

There also remain the troubling questions about whether anything could have been done to save Stevens and his team that night. While testifying before Congress, Stevens’s deputy, Greg Hicks, said a security team at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli had been ordered to “stand down” — that is, ordered not to go to Benghazi to rescue U.S. personnel…

Finally, there is the issue of the laughably false explanation initially given to the American public surrounding the attack. White House press secretary Jay Carney has already been caught offering the bald-faced lie that the only changes to the “talking points” attributing the Benghazi attack to a protest over a YouTube video were “stylistic edits.” No one on the ground in Benghazi reported a protest, leaving no clear explanation of how it became the centerpiece of the administration’s storyline on the attacks. Unless, of course, the administration invented that explanation out of whole cloth.

The demonization of a nobody uploading videos onto YouTube, and his subsequent arrest on a parole violation, suggest a chilling cynicism at the highest levels of the Obama administration…

For its stunning blend of recklessness, fecklessness, callousness, and shamelessness, Benghazi overcomes steep competition to remain the worst of the Obama administration’s collection of scandals. The American people deserve to know what happened and why.

From "Benghazi, One Year Later" (The Editors of National Review)

More "Don't Miss" Articles

* "The Epic Meltdown of the Gun-Grabbers" (Michelle Malkin, Town Hall)

* "15 Journalists Have Joined Obama Administration" (John Nolte, Breitbart)

* "Obama Wants Your Sexual History" (Betsy McCaughey, Creator's Syndicate)

* "Keith Olbermann, Craig James and a Shocking Example of Double Standards" (Michael Brown, Town Hall)

* "Republicans introduce plan to stop Obamacare without shutting down government" (Patrick Howley, Daily Caller)

* "Christian Liberties, the Stepchild of Today's 1st Amendment" (David Limbaugh, Town Hall)

Today's Posts

Fox Fires Sportscaster: Christianity Wouldn't Play in Their Human Resources Department

Supporting Obama No Matter What (Yes, It's Satire)

The Obama Administration -- They Just Can't Help But Hinder

Fox Fires Sportscaster: Christianity Wouldn't Play in Their Human Resources Department

Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council has an item about yet another Christian being fired for letting the Bible inform him on matters of morality and marriage. I pass along the body of Perkin's remarks which also includes a link to Fox Sports so you can let them know (as I already have) your opinion of their anti-religious bigotry.

As a former running back, Craig James (photo, upper left) isn't used to being on the defensive. But unfortunately, that's exactly where Fox Sports is putting him in a story that should rock the football world. The retired Pro-Bowler became the latest face of the war on religious liberty, when -- after one day on the job -- Fox Sports gave James the boot for his conservative views on marriage. And here's the kicker: he made the comments, not at the sports desk, but during last year's Senate campaign!

Apart from being a popular analyst, Craig also had political aspirations -- aspirations he followed to Texas in an unsuccessful bid against Ted Cruz during the primary. In the course of the campaign, Craig was asked -- as all candidates are -- about his views on marriage and sexuality. James's opinion happens to coincide with the research, which is that no one is born gay. And, as an orthodox Christian, he didn't shy away from the eternal consequences of this sin or any other. "...[T]hey are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions," he said before pledging not to support same-sex unions.

According to Sports Illustrated, the regional affiliate of Fox hired Craig without involving upper management. "Fox Sports executives were not happy with the hire by the regional network," sources explain. High level executives felt he hadn't been properly vetted (or, properly excluded, depending on how you look at it). When the news broke, a Fox Sports spokesman tried to explain away the network's religious profiling. "We just asked ourselves how Craig's statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn't say those things here."

First off, Craig didn't say them there -- or anywhere in his commentating capacity. He stated his position as a candidate for public office -- in response to legitimate constituent questions. To suggest that having an opinion on cultural issues disqualifies you from breaking down football plays is outrageous -- especially when that opinion is shared by the majority of Americans! Is the grip of religious hostility so tight that Americans can't even have an open debate for fear it'll cost them their jobs?...

From the military to Fox Sports to city halls like San Antonio's, the overwhelming message seems to be that when it comes to the public arena, conservative Christians need not apply. Let the network know what a disappointment their political correctness is by contacting Fox Sports and protesting Craig James's dismissal.

My note to Fox? "Your firing of Craig James represents an ugly, irresponsible act of bigotry. I'm very disappointed that you would so pervert political correctness as to deny a person employment due to their acceptance of moral convictions based upon the Holy Scriptures -- convictions that have, by the way, been the hallmark of Western civilization for centuries."

Supporting Obama No Matter What (Yes, It's Satire)

The Obama Administration -- They Just Can't Help But Hinder

The restaurant industry was already reeling from the low blows administered by the current Democrat administration, the lowest one of all being ObamaCare.

But now they are facing yet another attack on their economic productivity.

 Over at NRO, Congressman Kevin McCarthy lays out the problem.

...The first blow to the industry can be found within the president’s premier legislative achievement, Obamacare. In particular, Obamacare’s employee-insurance-mandate threshold has already forced restaurants to make the illogical choice of restructuring their work forces and not expanding their offerings and service in fear of this costly and arbitrary threshold. This requires any restaurant that employs more than 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide health insurance to any employee working over 30 hours a week; thus leading to the 29-hour work week as the new normal for restaurant employees.

Now the federal government has its sights on the restaurant world once again. But this time, it is coming from the agency with a penchant for picking on particular constituencies — the IRS. 

Beginning next year, the IRS has announced it will change the way it views tips received by restaurant servers. Specifically, for restaurants that have a minimum gratuity charge on large groups, the IRS will now count those tips as regular wages rather than traditional tips that we are all familiar with when we dine out. Ask any server and they will tell you that this will directly affect their day-to-day lifestyle. Servers make very little in regular wages and largely rely on tips to pay the bills and budget for weeks ahead. Taking portions of a shift’s pay and pushing it to their paycheck weeks away will only add to the uncertainty already inherent in the business. 

And it isn’t just the servers that will be frustrated by the new classification. Restaurant owners will be faced with more paperwork and reporting requirements, and less time to focus on how to keep an often volatile and competitive business with tight margins running smoothly. Will this little-publicized rule cause restaurants to no longer accept large parties? Probably not. But it will most definitely cause indigestion to servers and restaurateurs alike.

The IRS’s decision to target hardworking Americans navigating a very competitive industry already filled with regulations and burdensome compliance measures is just the latest example of a tone-deaf administration. Across the country people are struggling, and instead of promoting ideas that will ease their day-to-day burden, this administration is incrementally making life a little bit more difficult than it was before. 

Right now, we have the smallest percentage of Americans active in the work force since 1978. This trend is a recipe for continued economic malaise. And with this recent IRS regulation, I’m sure that hardworking folks in the restaurant industry are scratching their heads like I am and asking, why the beef with America’s waitresses and waiters?

Today's Posts

Remembering...and Still Mourning

Obama's Syrian Waffle

Why Approve the Keystone Pipeline Right Now? Here's 7 Reasons.

Planned Parenthood’s 3-Step Plan for Young Women

Jihadists Using Terror to Extort Money

Remembering...and Still Mourning

Obama's Syrian Waffle

Peggy Noonan wrote, "The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can't acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he's coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn't going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas."

To which Jim Geraghty of NRO added:

A lot of things "dissipate into the air like gas" with this administration. Benghazi. Fast & Furious. The IRS targeting the Tea Party. The Department of Justice collecting the phone records of the Associated Press. Attorney General Eric Holder's potential perjury. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius shaking down health-care companies for 'contributions' to promote Obamacare. The General Service administration's wasteful spending scandal. The demonization and incarceration of the guy who made the YouTube video, and the use of him as a scapegoat for Benghazi. The NSA's domestic-surveillance programs. Huma Abedin doing private-sector consulting work while working for Hillary Clinton at the State Department.

There's never any damn accountability with this bunch.

Why Approve the Keystone Pipeline Right Now? Here's 7 Reasons.

The Keystone pipeline is a fabulously pro-America, pro-growth, pro-freedom project. But yet Barack Obama continues to oppose it. Is this mere incompetence? An arrogant refusal to admit he was wrong?

Or does our President, for other reasons, truly want to keep real jobs from being created? And why would he so actively resist America's winning independence from foreign oil?

Sean Hackbarth over at Free Enterprise, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, encourages readers to check out Merrill Matthews' USA Today column which explains the clear and overwhelming reasons why Barack Obama should approve the Keystone pipeline right now.

I encourage you to read it too; it's an excellent piece.

But in case you'd like a quick-hit version to pass along to others, Hackbarth provides that in his summation, "7 Facts about the Keystone XL Pipeline."

1) The phase awaiting President Obama’s approval is part of a larger pipeline network that has been safely transporting Canadian oil sands crude to the U.S. since 2010. The final section will run from Alberta to Nebraska linking oil to Gulf Coast refineries.

2) Construction of the final section of the pipeline “will disturb less land than the pipeline that has already been built.”

3) To satisfy environmental concerns, Keystone XL builder TransCanada, rerouted the pipeline around environmentally-sensitive parts of Nebraska.

4) Not only will Keystone XL transport Canadian oil sands crude but will also move 100,000 barrels a day of oil from North Dakota and Montana.

5) Keystone XL will help reduce the U.S. trade deficit by continuing the trend of declining oil imports.

6) Rail and other pipelines are being planned to move Canadian oil sands crude. Blocking Keystone XL will not stop this development.

I’ll add a #7. Both the State Department and IHS CERA conclude that Keystone XL will have a minimal impact on the environment.

Keystone XL will create jobs, help grow the economy, and improve energy security. President Obama should end the delay and approve the pipeline.

Planned Parenthood’s 3-Step Plan for Young Women

Students for Life of America is taking on an ambitious educational project this fall -- a tour of 41 colleges in 20 states in which they'll be alerting students to the straight skinny about Planned Parenthood.

Among the revelations will be Planned Parenthood's carefully calculated schemes to establish long-term "customers" for its nefarious services:

Plan A: Provide poor quality, faulty birth control. In its February 2005 issue of Consumer Reports, the non-profit Consumers Union ranked two of Planned Parenthood’s condom lines the lowest out of all the brands that they tested.

Plan B: Encourage daily hormonal treatment. PP encourages young women to begin a daily regimen of hormonal birth control, and they placate fears about side effects by saying that modern hormonal contraceptives are safer than earlier iterations because they contain smaller amounts of hormones, even though there are still dangerous side effects like death. Should something go wrong though, they’ll then offer you those same hormones in massive doses (the “morning after pill” which can cause early abortions), claim it’s perfectly safe, and hope you won’t notice they’re contradicting themselves

Plan C: Offer deceptive counseling and biased information. If things didn’t go so well with the condoms and birth control, and pregnancy does occur, then Planned Parenthood offers “options counseling” to help decide a course of action. However, dozens of former employees have blown the whistle on the unscrupulous nature of PP’s “options counseling,” acknowledging that it was commonly used to steer women towards abortion (which they profit from) instead of adoption or parenting (which they don’t get paid for). In 2011, PP performed 145 abortions for every 1 adoption referral and has now mandated that every affiliate performs abortions.

For more information on this project and on Planned Parenthood in general (like how many abortions the business commits, how big a chunk of government money it is awarded every year, and the miniscule percentage of its activity in adoption and health screening), check out this SLA page.

Jihadists Using Terror to Extort Money

Raymond Ibrahim, writing in Human Events, describes how the
persecution of the Church by jihadist Muslims is escalating yet further. He especially addresses how the violence against Christians is moving from arson and murder to a vicious extortion -- and then back again.

So much for the Western liberal's continued assurance that Islam is but a religion of peace.

Now that the attacks on Egypt’s Christian churches have subsided, stage two of the jihad — profiting from the fear and terror caused by stage one — is setting in: reports are arriving that the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are forcing the roughly 15,000 Christian Copts of Dalga village in south Minya province to pay jizya — the money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims historically had to pay to their Islamic overlords “with willing submission and while feeling themselves subdued” to safeguard their existence, as indicated in Koran 9:29.

According to Fr. Yunis Shawqi, who spoke yesterday to Dostor reporters in Dalga, all Copts in the village, “without exception,” are being forced to pay tribute, just as their forefathers did nearly 1400 years ago when the sword of Islam originally invaded Christian Egypt.  He said that the “value of the tribute and method of payment differ from one place to another in the village, so that, some are being expected to pay 200 Egyptian pounds per day, others 500 Egyptian pounds per day…”

In some cases, those not able to pay have been attacked, their wives and children beaten and/or kidnapped.  As a result, some 40 Christian families have now fled Dalga, joining the ever growing list of displaced Christians in the Middle East.

It’s the same in Syria and Iraq. “Rebels” recently went to a Christian man’s “shop and gave him three options: become Muslim; pay $70,000 as a tax levied on non-Muslims, known as jizya; or be killed along with his family….  Androus from Mosul, Iraq… says he received a similar demand via telephone. ‘Because you are infidels, you have to pay jizya,’ he recalled being told over the phone. ‘Either you pay jizya, or we will kill you or your son.’”

Today's Posts

About Those "Draconian" Laws Closing Abortion Clinics

The Increasing Promotion of Euthanasia for Organ Use

Can "Grownup" Conservatives Win? Ask Tony Abbott.

Must Christianity Surrender?

About Those "Draconian" Laws Closing Abortion Clinics

Over 50 abortion mills have closed down over the last 3 years and several others are only open because activist judges have refused to allow the democratic process to go forward.

Of course, it's not surprising that Democrats and the progressive press are alarmed at this new rapidity in the abortion business decline. Nevertheless, the rage they've demonstrated over the new health and safety laws that have led to the abortuaries closing is quite over the top.

The liberals have called these laws a variety of things: radical, draconian, dangerous, cruel, mindless, bullying, conspiratorial, vengeful, unconstitutional and, of course, anti-women.

But what do these laws actually require that is so doggone hard for abortionists to meet?

How about simple health standards -- the same standards that have been on the books for years affecting other medical practices? Are the progressives so uncaring of a woman's health that they think requiring cleanliness in a medical facility is cruel? That surgical instruments and beds and sheets not be re-used? That surfaces be clean of germs, blood and other bodily fluids?

Draconian measures? Really?

How about the laws requiring that a currently licensed physician perform the operation and that said physician has appropriate medical privileges at a nearby hospital? Or that a woman be fully informed about the specific ways in which the abortion will be done, including the various dangers that procedure will pose to her own health and well-being?

Radical? Anti-women? You're kidding, right?

And finally, do abortion advocates really believe that a law requiring an ultrasound viewer be present or a law that prohibits late-term abortions that would kill viable children or a law that prevents minors from being aborted without their parent's permission is truly mean, dangerous, and unAmerican?

Of course not. But then such is the rabid and irrational nature of modern abortion advocacy. Powerful, dangerous chemical abortion drugs dispensed over the internet? That's fine. Abortion clinics ignoring the basic health and safety measures that even the tattoo parlor across the street must meet? Yeah, abortion is a special class. They don't need to abide by regular rules.  What about abortions performed by non-doctors? Sure, that's cool too. In fact, we just passed that law in California.

Gone are the days when Planned Parenthood and Democrat politicians spoke of the tragic deed being safe, legal but rare. Nowadays the raucous demands are for more and more abortion -- everywhere, all the time, and with no restrictions whatsoever.

The Increasing Promotion of Euthanasia for Organ Use

In this brief post at NRO's The Corner, Wesley J. Smith writes about the increasing practice of killing people for their organs. He cites, as a case in point, the sickening discussion at last May's 21st European Conference on General Thoracic Surgery about promoting the euthanasia idea to the mentally ill and to patients with disabling conditions such as MS.

Says Smith, "I can think of nothing more dangerous than making mentally ill and despairing disabled people believe their deaths have greater value than their lives. Well one thing, perhaps: Having a society accept the idea that it can benefit at the expense of people in desperate need of care -- and whose care is very expensive."

Can "Grownup" Conservatives Win? Ask Tony Abbott.

Most conservative parties and leaders face something like the same negative cultural stereotyping as Tony Abbott did. This undoubtedly puts them at a disadvantage and gives their opponents a leg-up in an election. 

The answer to it is neither to rage wildly against it nor to surrender nervously to it — a response that Australians call the “cultural cringe.” The first reaction makes voters nervous that the potential prime minister is too irresponsible or prejudiced to be trusted with the highest office; the second reaction makes even those being appeased contemptuous and dismissive. Even if such appeasement is rewarded electorally, it usually ensures that the incoming government will be too compromised by its concessions to achieve much in the way of conservative reform.

Abbott demonstrated, however, that conservatives can overcome such cultural opposition by presenting a positive, reasoned case for their policies in a grown-up way. Sure, they face the disadvantage of a liberal establishment and a cultural atmosphere hostile to their values and policies, but they have the incomparable advantage that those values are the values of most voters across the spectrum. 

If they present their case calmly and steadily, the voters will see through the negative caricatures. If they start out lacking the respect of the voters, they will gradually earn it by the manner of their campaigning. And respect will turn into votes when the time comes…

From "A Lesson from Australia" by John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large of National Review.

Must Christianity Surrender?

Mark Tooley examines the new advice coming from certain Catholic and evangelical leaders -- advice that says it's time to raise the white flag, accept the overwhelming dominance of modernism, and adjust our expressions of Christianity (if not our convictions also) to keep from offending the powers that be.

And you thought Jesus taught us to love God rather than the world.

Mark Tooley's important essay, "Is Christianity now outside the norms of American patriotism?" is right here at American Spectator.

Catholic thinker Jody Bottum’s recent controversial Commonweal essay suggested, “American Catholics should accept state recognition of same-sex marriage simply because they are Americans.” A bow to legally institutionalizing sexual liberalism has become the ticket to American civic engagement, it is suggested.

Noting he is a “Christian first, and an American second,” columnist Rod Dreher responded to Bottum by noting that “traditionalist Christians should think about what patriotism means in an America that is turning hostile to them.” He recalls that “many conservative Christians have thought, wrongly or rightly, for many years that being a ‘good Christian’ and being a ‘good American’ were one and the same.” But the “emerging order is forcing them, or should force them, to rethink all this.”...

In a different spirit, Bottum justified Catholic surrender on marriage in civil law by arguing the debate, among other harms, imperils the church’s image and effectiveness in the wider culture. Many evangelicals now make similar claims, believing unpopular culture war stances now inhibit evangelistic appeal, especially among young liberal urban elites. The most liberal end of Protestantism, embodied in the Episcopal Church, pushes full throttle for sexual liberalism inside and outside the church. More orthodox but combat-weary segments affirm traditional mores within the church but silence outside.

Popular author and conservative Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in Manhattan successfully preaches orthodoxy to socially liberal audiences while usually avoiding controversial sexual issues, which, he admits, often leaves congregations shunning eye contact with him for days afterward. And yet, when asked, he continues to espouse traditional morality. He essentially practices a selective political prudence in the topics he preaches…

Churches’ once aversion to culture clash over race echoes discomfort over marriage debates. As Wesley Hill in First Things recently observed, the endless polls ostensibly showing increased support for same-sex marriage even among the religious don’t capture the full reality. Many of the seriously religious who accept legal same-sex marriage retain orthodox beliefs about sexual morality and affirm those teachings within their churches. Hill quotes neo-Anabaptist Minnesota pastor and author Greg Boyd, a former culture warrior who quit the fight: “It’s one thing to say that a behavior falls short of God’s ideal, and quite a different thing to say that Christians should try to impose a law preventing that behavior.”

Boyd misses the point that current public debates aren’t over the legality of non-traditional sexuality but over the legal affirmation and promotion of it, often to the duress of dissenters from the Sexual Revolution. But many evangelicals and Catholics are tempted by his Mennonite style separatism. Religious calls to surrender in the culture wars believe a truce will win goodwill for traditional religion, not understanding the relentless, authoritarian character of sexual and social liberalism, which usually brooks no dissent. Same sex marriage and sexual orientation laws facilitate encroachments on private religious liberty and prepare tomorrow’s debates over polygamy, amid increasingly exotic claims over gender identity, with “open” bathrooms only a small first step…

Who You Gonna Believe? Your Own Eyes or NBC's Body Language Experts?

With Barack Obama's stumbling, bumbling performance of recent days -- a performance of such ineptness, duplicity and cowardice that even his friends have been cringing in embarrassment for him -- the faithful lapdogs of NBC go out of their way to try and bring back the Big O's swaggering image.

And they do so by bringing in sycophantic readers of -- wait for it -- body language.

President Barack Obama was intent on getting the upper hand as he greeted Russia's Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit on Thursday, according to body language experts who watched the frosty exchange.

From a jacket-buttoning pause to a hard-pumping handshake, Obama displayed tell-tale signs of dominance after he alit from a limo in front of St. Petersburg's Konstantin Palace, where Putin waited to meet him, communication experts said…

Tonya Reiman, who has written three books on body language, said Obama extended his hand at least two seconds before Putin did.

"This is a show of power," she said. "In addition, he leans in toward Putin with his upper body, placing himself slightly into Putin's personal zone. Notice Putin pulls back ever so slightly, which indicates that Obama has the upper hand."

During the handshake, they pumped up and down 18 times, said Joseph Tecce, a psychology professor and body-language scholar at Boston College.

"The handshake is very tense. The 18 may have been an attempt for either one to show dominance, to say, 'Don't fuss with me," he said. "Or they are saying, 'Look, we are shaking hands, we're good — an attempt to establish what is not real."

Wood said Obama grasped Putin's hand from underneath so he could bring it up to him.

"That says, 'I’m in charge here. I’m going to run the show," she said…

He said that Putin nodded 10 times during the encounter, tilting his head down even though it would have made more sense to look up at the taller Obama.

"Putin is intimidated by Obama, Obama is not intimidated by Putin," Tecce said…

When the encounter was over, Putin remained standing outside the palace as Obama walked inside.

Reiman noticed that before Obama strode off, he raised up his arm, which she labeled a sign of dominance. "Putin looks down — another sign of submissive behavior," she said…

Pretty laughable stuff, especially when NBC tries so very hard to make this malarkey sound credible. I mean, does anybody really think that Vladimir Putin, the hard-bodied thug who cut his teeth (and, more relevant, the teeth of others) as a KGB officer is intimidated by a community organizer with a weak golf swing and a constant need of vacation?

Exactly.

A Busy Week

It's been quite a week.

It's a week that has included blogging, two morning meetings, prayers outside the Planned Parenthood abortion mill, a talk to a group of scientists at the USDA (along with a sample showing of "When Swing Was King"), a quick trip to Lincoln to visit a young man in hospice, getting the lawn mowed, creating two different flyers and a photo-dominated table display for a ministry "fair" at Grace University, taking Claire's niece out for a birthday dinner, and trying to make the necessary preparations to start teaching both a new sermon series and a new adult Sunday school class this Sunday. 

And it was only a four-day week!

Sigh.
 

Swimming Through Blood-Stained Waters

When you stop applauding 64-year old Diana Nyad for her remarkable athletic achievement; namely, being the first person to swim from Cuba to Florida without the help of a shark cage, you might then consider the political statement that was also involved. For, make no mistake, there are politics aplenty.

And though the physical and mental endurance required to accomplish such a feat must certainly be respected, the political implications of Ms. Nyad's swim must not.

One of the most eloquent voices for Cuba's freedom, Humberto Fontova, dares to examine how Nyad's highly-publicized swim serves the decadent, corrupt, and brutally oppressive Communist regime of the Castro brothers -- a regime of which Nyad warmly approves. The article is an important, necessary corrective.

Please excuse the families of an estimated 50 thousand freedom-seekers (men women, children, infants) who died horribly on Diana Nyad’s exact route from joining her celebration this week.

Many Cubans completed the hundred mile journey on flotation devices most of us wouldn’t board outside a backyard swimming pool. Many more died horribly in the attempt, from dehydration, sunburn, drowning, sharks and machine-gunnings by Diana Nyad’s hosts and facilitators...

“For crying out loud, Humberto!” comes the chorus of complaints. “The entire nation’s rejoicing over Diana Nyad’s amazing and inspiring feat! You’re a buzzkiller with bells on! Can’t you give politics a rest! Nyad herself left all politics out of her triumphal swim! Geeesh!”

Not so fast, amigos. “Millions of us worldwide, but especially here in the United States, have been fascinated by the mystique of this "forbidden" island so close to our shores, “wrote Nyad in her Huffington Post column last year. ”We are aware of the advanced level of medicine and general education on the island. We have installed proud posters of Che (Guevara) on our college room walls… as someone who grew up with many Cuban friends in South Florida someone who has now visited Havana some 30 times..”

Whoops! Let’s stop right there for now. Overlook for a second her Michael Moore-isms regarding Cuba’s “healthcare,” her parroting of the Castro script on this issue. Skip her boastful idolatry of the psychopathic murderer, sadist, coward and doofus Che Guevara…Skip all that for now.

Instead note how she boasts of repeatedly visiting Castro’s totalitarian fiefdom. For the benefit of those who came of political age after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Communist regimes do not issue celebrity visitor visas randomly…In brief if you’re not there to help the regime’s image abroad, you’re not getting a visa, at least more than once…

“(Nyad) said the Cuban authorities would have preferred that she swim toward the island rather than away from it,” disclosed a Miami Herald article during an earlier try in 2010, “as it may be construed as symbolic of the Cubans who flee the island. But she explained she could swim only in one direction because of the strong currents in the Gulf Stream.”

In other words, Nyad fully recognized the symbolism of her swim. She fully recognized that the Stalinist regime was promoting it. Only the direction of the currents prevented her from following the script exactly as delivered by the Stalinist regime. Still, the Stalinist regime should be very proud of her. She kept studiously mum on the issue of the estimated 50,000 un-marked graves she was swimming over.

Should anyone need further proof of Nyad's usefulness to the Castro regime, [refer to] the adulatory coverage of her swims by the Castro regime's KGB-mentored propaganda organ...

But today the establishment focuses exclusively on Nyad’s (genuinely praiseworthy) swim. Her long and warm and public romance with the murderous and war-mongering totalitarian regime that facilitated her swim and used it for propaganda purposes matters not a wit, except to those dependably contrarian and buzz-killing Cuban-Americans.

Read here the entirety of Humberto Fontova's article, "Diana Nyad Desecrates 50,000 Graves."

What Is Expository Preaching & Why Is It So Important?

"Denny, you frequently describe your philosophy of preaching with the word, 'expository.' Just what does that mean and why do you insist it to be so important? Isn't all preaching basically the same?"

I think I'll let Dr. Al Mohler Jr., the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, answer the question. Below are excerpts from Dr. Mohler's exceptional essay, ""The Sheer Weightlessness of So Many Sermons -- Why Expository Preaching Matters."

If preaching is central to Christian worship, what kind of preaching are we talking about? The sheer weightlessness of much contemporary preaching is a severe indictment of our superficial Christianity. When the pulpit ministry lacks substance, the church is severed from the word of God, and its health and faithfulness are immediately diminished…

Authentic Christian preaching carries a note of authority and a demand for decisions not found elsewhere in society. The solid truth of Christianity stands in stark contrast to the flimsy pretensions of postmodernity. Unfortunately, the appetite for serious preaching has virtually disappeared among many Christians who are content to have their fascinations with themselves encouraged from the pulpit…

Expository preaching begins with the preacher’s determination to present and explain the text of the Bible to his congregation. This simple starting point is a major issue of division in contemporary homiletics, for many preachers assume that they must begin with a human problem or question and then work backward to the biblical text. On the contrary, expository preaching begins with the text and works from the text to apply its truth to the lives of believers. If this determination and this commitment are not clear at the outset, something other than expository preaching will result…

Expository preaching is inescapably bound to the serious work of exegesis. If the preacher is to explain the text, he must first study the text. He must devote the hours of study and research necessary to understand the text. Along with his time, the pastor must invest the largest portion of his energy and intellectual engagement to this task of “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15 NASB). There are no shortcuts to genuine exposition. The expositor is not an explorer who returns to tell tales of the journey. He is a guide who leads the people into the text and teaches the arts of Bible study and interpretation, demonstrating these essential disciplines in his preaching.

The expository preacher, moreover, yields to both the content and the shape of the biblical text as the inerrant and infallible word of God, divinely designed and directed. God has spoken through the inspired human authors of Scripture, and each different genre of biblical literature demands that the preacher give careful attention to the text, allowing it to shape the message…

The preacher rises in the pulpit to accomplish one central purpose: to set forth the message and meaning of the biblical text. This requires historical investigation, literary discernment, and the faithful employment of the analogia fidei to interpret the Scriptures by Scripture. It also requires the expositor to reject the modern conceit that what the text meant is not necessarily what it means. If the Bible is truly the enduring and eternal word of God, it means what it meant as it is newly applied in every generation.

Once the meaning of the text is set forth, the preacher moves to application. Application of biblical truth is a necessary task of expository preaching. But application must follow the diligent and disciplined task of explaining the text itself…

Application is absolutely necessary, but it is also fraught with danger. The chief danger may well be the temptation to believe that the preacher can or should manipulate the human heart. The preacher is responsible for setting forth the eternal word of Scripture. Only the Holy Spirit can apply that word to human hearts or even open eyes and ears to understand and receive the meaning of the text...

Today's Posts

Abortion in America: Unsafe to Moms Too

Are You On Board the Health Care Conscience Rights Act?

Who's Scary to Liberals? The Rising Female Stars of the G.O.P.

Abortion in America: Unsafe to Moms Too

Dr. Byron Calhoun, vice chairman of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department at West Virginia University, writes to the state's Attorney General.

We commonly (I personally probably at least weekly) see patients at Women and Children’s Hospital in our emergency room or our ultrasound center with complications from abortions at these centers in Charleston: so much for "safe and legal." These patients are told to come to our hospital because the abortion clinic providers do not have hospital privileges to care for their patients, so we must treat them as emergency "drop-ins."

…No other medical providers are allowed to care for patients, have no backup coverage, and then abandon them to the emergency room. We would be held ethically and legally liable…The fantasy of women’s reproductive health care seems to allow these individuals who perform the abortions some special dispensation to provide substandard care.

Here's more.

Are You On Board the Health Care Conscience Rights Act?

Back in March, I posted here an action alert about H.R. 940, the Health Care Conscience Rights Act. In that post I embedded a brief video clip which featured just a sample of the Americans who have already suffered religious discrimination from the aggressive menace of ObamaCare. I then asked you to consider writing your political representatives about enthusiastically supporting the rights of conscience by supporting the bill.

I'm repeating that request this morning and uploading again the video clip at the tail end of this post.

Listen to the stories of the folks in the clip and then write or call your Congressman asking them to co-sponsor and work heartily to make H.R. 940 into law. Also, pass the word along to friends and family, fellow church members, Facebook and other social media, and ask them to do the same.

By the way, I'm pleased to say that all of Nebraska's Congressmen are co-sponsors of the bill and they deserve your thanks. Those of you from other states can discover whether your Congressmen have signed on or not by checking out this page.

Who's Scary to Liberals? The Rising Female Stars of the G.O.P.

What makes Democrats and their enabling friends in the old guard media tremble? Well, there's quite a bit actually. For instance, they're deathly afraid of a level playing field, free speech, and Christianity. Liberals also shudder at the NRA, school choice, coal, and ultrasound images of preborn children. And then there's the bugaboos of atomic energy, Fox News, the Constitution, and anything that might restrain government power.

There are also specific personalities who haunt the nightmares of progressives. Rush Limbaugh is among those boogeymen, of course, as are such fellows as Antonin Scalia, Rick Perry, Clarence Thomas, Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz and the ghosts of Charlton Heston and Ronald Reagan.

But there's a whole new wave of terror that liberals are desperate to hold at bay -- a new wave of smart, accomplished, telegenic, well-spoken women whose principles are authentic, compassionate and thoroughly conservative.

Yipes! It's no wonder the media is working overtime to mock, dismiss, distort -- and mainly ignore -- such rising G.O.P. stars.

It's not just Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter that the Dems have to worry about nowadays. They now must deal with the very engaging, very persuasive force represented by such women as a popular Hispanic governor of a blue state (Susana Martinez); a lieutenant governor of a blue state who is a cancer survivor and former TV anchor (Rebecca Kleefisch); a gorgeous blonde attorney general of Florida (Pam Bondi); a former Miss America and Harvard-trained lawyer taking aim at Congress (Erika Harold); a daughter of Cuban and Greek immigrants who is the only Republican woman elected to any office in New York City (Nicole Malliotakis); and the first female fighter pilot in American history to fly combat missions -- she flew an A-10 Warthog in more than 100 missions over Iraq -- who holds degrees from the Air Force Academy and Harvard (Martha McSally).

Oh, did I mention that these lovely, intelligent, highly effective women are all eloquent pro-life advocates too?

Now that's really something to scare liberals!

I would suggest you find out more about these (and other) up and coming Republican heroines. (Patricia Murphy's article in The Daily Beast, "Nine Women Remaking the Right" is a great start.

And then please consider what you might do to help counteract the mainstream media's unfair treatment of such Republicans. Pray for them. Think about supporting their campaigns. Talk about them, informing your friends, family and co-workers about the high quality people that are emerging from the G.O.P. ranks. In the swirl of media bias, Democrat distortions and even intransigence from certain hidebound quarters of their own party, these gals can use all the help they can get.

Today's Posts

Praying to the "Great She" for More Abortions

Liberals Have Rules Too

Finding Water in the Desert: The Best Billboard Ever!

Praying to the "Great She" for More Abortions

LifeNews.com, National Review, and other sources reported last week on an unusual event at the Iowa Capitol -- an "abortion prayer meeting" which featured two of the Democrat candidates for Iowa's governor joining in the fun: State Senator Jack Hatch and State Representative Tyler Olson.

The person leading the prayer was an older woman whose background was in the bureaucracy of organized labor rather than in pastoral work. And it showed. The prayer was quite long, unbearably presumptuous and boring, and it was directed to a distinctly female deity of some sort. Indeed, the woman went out of her way to change the text of Sydney Carter's 1963 "Lord of the Dance" poem (the only text referred to in the prayer) from a male pronoun to a female one in order to emphasize the feminist/goddess element that is so commonly featured in these abortion-oriented religious events.

Throughout the whole ridiculous and blasphemous dirge, the Democrat political hopefuls Hatch and Olson remained in a solemn, respectful posture. That's certainly something to remember come election season, Iowans.

The prayer itself was along the lines you'd expect. Thanks to the Great Ms. in the Sky for abortionists, for the Democrat Party's protection and even extension of the grisly trade, and for the potent effect of empowered women and emasculated males. And yes, supplication for more abortions here, there and everywhere.

By the way, if you're tolerant enough to watch the video clip attached to the story, you'll note a most unprayerful scene -- participants looking stupidly and self-consciously around the building, remarkably haughty attitudes (i.e. the "refusing shame" line particularly stands out), a dependence upon government rather than God, the equating of Christianity with a "paternalistic religion" that causes women to "fear their own power" and, most of all, an overwhelming dullness.

And since when does one need a microphone to get in touch with the Almighty?

Anyhow, it would have made a laughable scene were it not so seriously sinister. I mean, politicians paying court to such blatant blasphemy, the very purpose of which is to promote the wanton killing of human beings living inside their mothers' wombs? Bizarre. Despicable. And utterly wicked.

Liberals Have Rules Too

There's no doubt about it it. One of John Hawkins' best columns to date (and he has plenty of good ones) is "12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal." It's most definitely a keeper. Indeed, I've printed it off and will be using it as a conversation starter with friends and enemies alike.

Here's a few of my favorites:

3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned: There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It's not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It's not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.

4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don't pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.

7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don't work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn't work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill" than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.

9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn't work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people's lives. There's nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.

Finding Water in the Desert: The Best Billboard Ever!

This UTEC project in Peru is not only exciting; it's inspirational. 

Man alive, let's get more of these things up and working!

Here's more from a story written by Kiona Smith-Strickland in Popular Mechanics Magazine.

This is not the first attempt to pull clean water out of thin air. In 2011, French company Eole installed a wind turbine in Abu Dhabi, which the company claims generates more than 1400 liters of water each day. The WMS1000 is 24 meters (about 78 feet) tall, and its 13-meter rotor turns at up to 100 rpm to run a 30-kilowatt generator. This in turn powers a cooling compressor inside the turbine. An intake pulls air into the compressor, and moisture condenses out as the air cools. The water runs down into a purification and storage tank at the base of the turbine.

The turbine needs winds of at least 15 mph to generate enough power for the compressor. In a desert climate with an average temperate of 95 degrees Fahrenheit and average relative humidity of about 30 percent, the WMS1000 generates about 350 liters of water a day. In humid coastal climates, production increases to about 1200 liters a day. Adding a solar power unit to the turbine could increase output by a few hundred liters more.

Eole designed the turbine for remote communities of fewer than 5000 people, but when it launched the WMS1000 commercially, in 2012, the price tag for a single turbine was about $660,000, well beyond the budget of most small communities in developing countries.

Back in Lima, the UTEC engineering department and Mayo Publicidad may have found a way to offset the cost barrier: advertising.

Since the billboard's installation, UTEC reports a 28 percent increase in enrollment. Results like that may attract the attention of private companies looking for new ways to advertise. The city of Lima and other urban areas, such as Cairo, Egypt, suffer the same lack of potable water as remote villages, and an advertising-funded solution that taps into an existing electrical infrastructure may work well there. UTEC has not yet announced plans to install more billboards in Lima or to make the technology commercially available elsewhere, but the project has started new discussions about how to provide access to clean water...

(Hat tip: Paul Gregory Richard)