Wednesday, January 28, 2009

We hate to say "I told you so," but...

From the time he said he would talk to Iran people had criticized Obama. His stance is that you can't be afraid to try new things when it comes to diplomacy. Even George Washington said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that you can't let old hatreds dictate your future course. However, Iran, and particularly their president, Amanutjob, aren't an "old hatred." They're a very current hatred, in that they hate the United States. They close their prayers on Fridays with "death to America" and have done so since 1979. The only thing they hate worse than the United States is Israel.

Earlier this week Obama has gone public saying that when the US deals with the middle east we too often "dictate first" and listen last. This statement makes the US appear to be weak, and that goes much deeper than an ego thing. Barely a day later, Amanutjob had this to say:

"Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation,"

Crimes? What crimes has the US committed against Iran? According to Amanutjob, the crimes are criticizing and trying to block their nuclear program. (For you "America is a country of oppression" folks out there, note that to Iran, criticism is considered a crime. Think about that next time you're calling for Bush to be prosecuted and have no fear of reprisal!) Iran's former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who seems to be somewhat less crazy than their current one (Rafsanjani at least acknowledges the holocaust happened), says this about their nuclear program:

"We are not bothering anyone, but we have acquired nuclear expertise and we want to benefit from it to improve our life."

But he also says this:

"Look, as long as we can enrich uranium and master the fuel cycle, we don’t need anything else. Our neighbors will be able to draw the proper conclusions."

And this:

"If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

So what are we to believe? That one of the most oil rich nations in the world, who can produce electricity far cheaper with petroleum than with nuclear power, wants to use nuclear power peacefully, or that they want to build a weapon to destroy Israel? Since they've said they want to destroy Israel, and a nuclear bomb being set off inside Israel is "an eventuality," and we are to draw the "proper conclusions" about their nuclear program, it doesn't take Pythagoras to figure this one out.

Obama has this overriding desire to be liked. Nations are not so different from canines in that they need a leader, they need an Alpha so they know their place. A pack without an Alpha is going to have a fight for power. Being liked by all doesn't equate to leadership; and furthermore, it's not possible to make every nation want to be friendly with the US. But that's what Obama wants to do, so he adopts this posture of diplomacy, which is like a dog rolling over and exposing it's belly to show it's not a threat. And now, with our belly exposed lest we appear to be trying to be the alpha dog, we're being asked to apologize to a nation that has openly expressed it's hatred of the United States and has openly expressed the desire to destroy one of our allies. Like a frat boy being spanked and saying "thank you sir may I have another," we're being asked to apologize for trying to stop them from acquiring the means to effect that destruction. Nice...I only hope Israel can survive 4 years of this kind of diplomacy.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

My latest message to Colorado elected officials

Off to a fast start - the wrong direction?

Esteemed Elected Officials,

I am disappointed that you have voted for the Ledbetter and Paycheck Fairness Acts. These simply open the door for untold frivolous lawsuits against which corporations will spend fortunes to fight. In a time where our economy is already struggling, is it really wise to give access to a populace more likely to need, therefore sue, for money they haven't earned? Is it wise to further burden employers who are already struggling to survive? I see more harm than good coming from this interference in the free market. It was Caleb Strong who said "Inequality arises from the nature of things and not from any defect in the form of administration of government. All that the best government can do is prevent the inequality which fraud, violence or oppression could provide." These bills go beyond the bounds of good governance into the realm of government administering business. Lawyers must be positively licking their chops at the scent of blood in the air over these votes.

While speaking of votes, please thoroughly vet the nominee for Secretary Of The Treasury, Tim Geithner. His comments that he was sorry for his non payment of $34,000 worth of taxes fall short. He says he was "careless" but the mistakes were not "intentional." The same could be said of all of the people who got us into this mess, starting with Jimmy Carter, through Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Alan Greenspan to Ben Bernake and Hank Paulson. None intentionally destroyed our economy (I hope that's the case!), but an argument could be made that all have been careless. Do we really need more careless leadership in Washington? I firmly believe that he will receive a rubber stamp, just as I firmly believe the Democratic elected officials from this fine state will vote party lines on every issue that comes before them. It's up to you to prove you can and will listen to the people you represent. Assuming you actually read this and not just an aide or intern, thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Richard Baker

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

How Long Did The Unity Last?

In Obama's inaugural speech he said "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

It wasn't even a day before you have Jay-Z and Young Jeezy spouting off, with Jay-Z saying "My president is black" and how he doesn't want anymore "white lies" and several other Bush-bashing rants. Yep, time to end the petty grievances, alright. Oh, I forget that means that conservatives should shut and let the liberal hate mongers have their say. Remember Obama's big speech, the one Chris Matthews likened to the Gettysburg Address, where he spoke about race and hoped that we could end racism, that we should have a national dialog about it? Then he brought up race time and again? Good Christ, it's one thing for people to go on and on (and on) about the historical significance of our first [half] black president but then Jay-Z and young Wheezy shoot off their mouths and reduce the whole thing to white Frankly, I think there will never be a time where we don't look at color in this country because people like Jay-Z won't let us move past it. And what if, four years from now, Eminem were to say "My president is white!" at a party after the inauguration? He's be called on the carpet for his blatant racism, as Jay-Z and Jeezy should be.

Again, I'm no Obama fan, but it's in my best interest, as well as the rest of the country's, that he succesfully get the economy back on track. I hope he's successful in that regard. I am not hopeful - the only thing so far that's changed is who sits in the chair in the Oval Office. He's submitting an $800 billion stimulus package? The only change that represents is that it's larger than the one Bush enacted last year (when Obama said stimulus packages don't work). People always get pissed when the government takes our money and does things with it that we don't's a chance for a little revenge. Tomorrow, Obama is signing an executive order allowing federal funds (your tax dollars) to be used to fund abortions for people who can't pay for them themselves. Well, I'm using my stimulus check to buy a handgun! Thanks for the gun money, Bommie!

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Time to walk the talk

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

This is a line from Obama's inaugural speech transcript (I read the transcript rather than listen to his halting, condescending tones). The irony is that he said this moments (I heard) after the partisan crowd finished booing not just Bush and Cheney, but their wives as well! What could the liberals in the crowd possibly have against these women? Other than the facts that they are conservative and married to the outgoing president and vice-president, I can't imagine. But hey - we're all about ending petty grievances, now right? Obama has proclaimed it. Here's the deal though - ending petty grievances, false promises, etc means that the Democratic congress has to play nice with the Republicans. I'm not going to hold my breath. And so starts Obama watch. As I've said before, I am determined to show Obama all the respect his position deserves - in the exact same manner that the liberals treated our last president! Maybe I'll start with the Obama Countdown Clock.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

How to contract your elected officials

I got this from the "against the so-called freedom of choice act" group on facebook.

What can you do to stop FOCA?
1. Sign the petition:
2. Take part in the peaceful protests for life in January 2009 - more info here
3. Leave a comment on President-elect Obama's website about FOCA: This site also shows an agendum for abortion issues in his administration.
4. Find your Senators and Representatives here and tell them you don't support FOCA. (You will need to supply a zipcode, click the congressman's name, and then click the "contact" tab.)

Sunday, January 4, 2009

FOCA - Abortion On Demand? Tell your congress NO!

One of the first battles that Obama will fight will be one for full access to abortion – removing obstacles like parental consent and late term prohibitions. Barack Obama’s own words affirm this commitment. From his his Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision: "Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.”

In an op-ed piece published in Boulder Weekly, Jill Hopke laments the horrible state we’ve come to in America, writing “In 2003, Bush signed into law a federal ban on late term abortions, called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act…This law does not include any exceptions for medically necessary abortions…”

On this topic, the former president of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher, weighs in: "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother.i"

In other words, medical necessity is rarely a factor in making a decision about whether or not to abort a child.

Hopke, in an attempt to undermine the partial birth ban, goes on to say “partial-birth abortion is not a medical term used by the American Medical Association..” Why is this important? Semantics matter when you’re talking about killing children. That’s why they’re referred to as “fetuses” instead of babies. Hopke would rather refer to partial birth abortion as a “professionally accepted procedure such as intact dilation and extraction.” Sounds better, doesn’t it? What does it involve?

From Wikipedia, here’s a synopsis: “The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[9] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. ii” Let’s put that in layman’s terms: The doctor pulls the baby part way out, cuts open the skull, shoves in scissors, then sucks the brain out before pulling the baby out the rest of the way. When you hear in plain language what is involved you can see why semantics matter to pro-abortion activists.

Let me ask another question – if the baby can be delivered that far, why can’t it be delivered all the way? Certainly, if there’s a life threatening condition, with the child hasving reached a viable stage of development he or she can be delivered via c-section to end the pregnancy without ending a life. As said on the American Life League site: “Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. iii

The answer is that abortion is not about reproductive rights or reproductive “justice” as Obama calls it; it’s actually about convenience. As Obama says himself: "Look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

That says it better than I ever could. Abortion is about avoiding the consequences of one’s actions. Whether it’s going to negatively impact a career, a college education, or anger parents of a young or unwed girl, an unexpected child is hugely inconvenient. The liberal first line of defense is abortion – it’s quick, easy and until later term abortion was outlawed, easy to access. They never talk about other options like adoption unless they’re pushed.

This year, congress is going to try to reopen the partial birth door with the Freedom Of Choice act. Introduced by Barbara Boxer, the stated purpose is “To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes. iv” The bill is thick with scary language like the following: “Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.”

This is not true in the least. Bernard Nathanson was one of the founding members of NARAL, and in his “confession of an ex-abortionist v” he says: “This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000.”

The FOCA also quotes the World Health Organization as saying that 600,000 pregnancy deaths occur world-wide every year, 80,000 of them from illegal abortions. The intent is to make us think that if this act isn’t passed, those numbers could be applied here in the US. Again, this is a feint to mislead anyone who would actually take the time to read the bill.

However, also according to WHOvi , 97% of these deaths occur in developing countries in Africa and Asia where hospitals lack proper sanitation, health care in general is poor and access to medical facilities problematic. The most common complications leading to death both in a pregnancy and an abortion in the developing world include hemorrhage, sepsis, peritonitis, and trauma to the cervix, vagina, uterus, and abdominal organs. WHO also states that the main barriers to proper care include:
  • frequent shortages or lack of medications, essential supplies and equipment;
  • inadequate blood transfusion services;
  • inefficient laboratory support services;
  • inadequate staffing, shortage of appropriately trained personnel and lack of staff supervision;
  • shortage of operating theatres for obstetric emergencies, resulting in delays in surgical interventions;
  • weak policy on delegation of authority for the management of obstetric emergencies, and
  • mismanagement of obstetric complications as a result of staff incompetence, negligence or poor attitude.
Timely access to appropriate obstetric emergency care (EOC) could avert 75% of these deaths, according to the paper, which enumerates the delays on the pathway to appropriate care in the region.vii Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama would have people believe that the simple act of increasing the availability of abortion will somehow fix these numbers.

The truth is that the worldwide deaths related to pregnancy (roughly 10% are from “unsafe” abortion – WHO does not use the term “illegal”) have more to do with the quality of medical care in the developing world. In America both the quality of care and the access to it are among the best in the world – it is only the convenience of abortion on demand that liberals feel is lacking. The fact that they must dress up their argument with bogus statistics and muddy the waters with global, third-world data should tell people this piece of legislation should be sent to the shredder.



I got this from the "against the so-called freedom of choice act" group on facebook.

What can you do to stop FOCA?
1. Sign the petition:
2. Take part in the peaceful protests for life in January 2009 - more info here
3. Leave a comment on President-elect Obama's website about FOCA: This site also shows an agendum for abortion issues in his administration.
4. Find your Senators and Representatives here and tell them you don't support FOCA. (You will need to supply a zipcode, click the congressman's name, and then click the "contact" tab.)