Telling a hardcore Liberal that “life” is an unalienable right guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence is an exercise in futility. Following that up by quoting the Constitution’s preamble, which promises to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY” (emphasis mine) accomplishes little more.

A Liberal still swears that a woman has the right to kill her baby for any reason at all. Only, they word it differently. They say something along the lines of, “government doesn’t get to legislate morality of a woman’s personal decision.” By citing the word “morality,” they scare off religious individuals. They’ve foreshadowed the tried-and-true “church and state” argument that they just love to whip at an issue like pasta to a wall. Sometimes it sticks, but usually…

They’ve also used the phrase “women’s decision.” And there’s the thunderbolt. They’ve tried to make it a “women’s issue.” Now anyone who disagrees with them is a sexist. How mature. They act like someone needs to have a uterus to comprehend the value of human life. Try to explain that to the millions of American fathers who are constantly shafted over custody agreements in divorce court. Try to tell those fathers that they just don’t love their kids as much as mommy does. You’ll walk away with a black eye and a few broken bones.

I recently read Ron Paul’s book Revolution: a Manifesto. In one specific part of this book, Paul discusses some of the earliest legal abortions in America. Do you know what the difference between a C-section and an abortion was at the time? A month or two’s difference; and the fact that, after a c-section, a baby winds up in a room with doctors and nurses buzzing around him whereas, after an abortion, the baby wound up dropped into a bucket in the corner of the room. That was the whole difference!

I used to agree with Congressman Paul and Senator McCain (among others) that abortion was an issue best left to the states. But after recent… shall we say… reassessments; I’ve found that the only way to properly rectify this issue is to amend the Constitution to ban abortions in all cases except those where the life of the mother is in question.

It seems cut-and-dry to me. If you’re “responsible” enough to have sex, you’re responsible enough to stand up for your decision. The “right to choice” is the right to abstain. Actions have consequences. That’s life. I don’t need to be a woman or a priest to figure that out. I also don’t need to be either of these things to discover that every child deserves a chance at life. That’s not religion, it’s the Constitution. Which leads me to ask, what kind of idiotic decision-makers were behind Roe v. Wade? What happened to the Supreme Court? Where was the “bastion of wisdom” that they are supposed to represent?

Now, I know that some bleeding-heart Lib would cry out at me by this point, “what about rape?” To be fair, that’s a valid question. So is this one: “did the baby rape her?” I ask, what could be more indicative of the sheer strength and moral capacity of the American spirit than turning the horrible thing that happened to this poor woman into the most precious gift that anyone can possibly give: the gift of life? Of course, no rational person would expect the woman to raise that child on her own, but life in an orphanage is better than no life at all. Put the child up for adoption. There are even agencies that will find your child a family before you ever even give birth, if you want to ensure that your baby gets a loving home.

To their credit, the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held up this South Dakota law, which requires doctors to inform a woman that she’s about to terminate a human life. This is a great first step in terminating (sorry) the horrendous error in judgment that is Roe. We need more laws like this across all of America. We need to find more ways to defend our Nation's most defenseless.

Iran threatens America and Israel:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377626,00.html

Russia threatens America over Czech relations:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378065,00.html

Maybe I’m clairvoyant! I wrote the following commentary for my high school newspaper in November 2007:

Ask a random person on the street what the greatest threat to our National Security is, and you’ll probably get quite a few different answers. One person will say it’s al-Quaeda, another might claim that it’s global warming, and an uninformed, sarcastic individual may use the opportunity to snipe at President Bush.

Less than 20 years ago, the answer to that question would have most certainly been “Russia.” It’s frightening to think that within our lifetime, the greatest threat to National Security may once again very well be “Russia,” at least in part.

Three out of four of the world’s largest oil powers are linked together, and are a big part of what’s keeping Americans crying at the gas pump. According to CNN, these countries are Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. Two of these countries are ruled by totalitarian dictators, and the third is led by an ex-KGB agent whose record is shaky, at best.* These countries are entering into territory that Americans should be skeptical of, if not genuinely afraid of.

Iran is supplying the terrorists who we’re fighting in Iraq, and they are very chummy with Russia and Venezuela. Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad consistently welcomes Russian and Venezuelan leaders with open arms. The question is: why would these leaders want to be welcomed by the Holocaust-denying leader of a corrupt government whose stated mission is to wipe Israel and “infidels,” read: Americans, off the face of the map? This man is an Islamic extremist version of Hitler. Americans should be alarmed by this man’s power alone, but combining him with a communist dictator and a declining Russia is terrifying.

Venezuela is the biggest oil supplier in our hemisphere, and their leader has been quoted numerous times verbally assaulting America. Their cooperation with Iran casts a frightening shadow of nuclear armament mixed with oil powers, which could be detrimental to American well-being. We can’t defend ourselves if the enemy has our biggest fuel source in its pocket. According to the BBC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wants an arms deal with Russia. This feels a little bit too much like the beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis for my liking.

Russia is thankfully not the danger that it once was, but very soon, it may regain its seat as a major threat to the United States. By backing both Iran and Venezuela in the UN, and paying them financial tribute, they may be moving in a dangerous direction. Additionally, the Russians have recently socialized their country’s biggest business: oil. President Putin* has done an alarmingly good job of reinstating policies of the USSR and socializing businesses that start to get too big, in other words: successful. He’s letting Russia’s private sector do the work of rebuilding profit capabilities, and then scooping up the industries to reap the rewards.

The three nations have constructed a joint compound in Venezuela. And because of Russia’s place on the UN Security Council, it’s impossible to be certain of what’s going on down there. Americans should be concerned with that base, but, understandably, our focus is on the two wars we are currently engaged in, not one that most people think “may come in the future.” Sorry friends, the future is now.

Only small margins of Americans refuse to acknowledge that we are currently, for all intents and purposes, at war with Iran. We know that Iranian money and armament are keeping insurgents and terrorists going in Iraq. American agents from the NSA and CIA have found Iranian markings on weapons and missiles confiscated from insurgents. We know that Iran is developing a nuclear program. America has been trying to reason with Ahmadinejad about abandoning the program for quite a while now. We know that Russia has made “unspecified proposals” regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We know that both countries are friendly with Hugo Chavez, the communist oil tyrant that runs Citgo and hates America (nice combo). And we know that the three countries have something going on in Venezuela.

Between these countries’ secrecy in dealings and their sketchy backgrounds, Americans should be vigilant. There may be no threat at all. That’s a definite possibility, but we need to have a healthy respect for what these countries may be capable of, even if we need not fear them…yet.**

*Note: President Putin is no longer the Russian President. He is now Chairman of the United Russia political party, as well as Prime Minister of Russia. His successor is current President Dmitry Medvedev.

**Note 2: We do, indeed, need to have a healthy respect for the danger that these countries pose to America and Her allies. World War III is likely around the corner, and its centerpieces will be Middle East relations and oil, compounded by hostilities with Russia. 

In light of the Supreme Court striking down Washington DC’s gun ban, all eyes are now turning to sweet home Chicago, whose 26-year-old gun ban is sure to be challenged.

Obviously, the ban is unconstitutional, but what about the arguments coming from the gun control Left in favor of the ban? They usually claim that guns increase murder rates. Needless to say that the gun ban has not helped Chicago, which has some of the worst gun and gang activity in the country. Face it; if the bad guys (for lack of a better term) want guns, they’ll get them. And the guns probably won’t come from a legal shop so much as they’ll come from the trunk of some shmuck’s car. Here’s the first failure of the gun ban.

The second failure comes from pure logic. Most of you are familiar with the Drew Peterson case. He is a former cop who had three wives all die under “mysterious” circumstances. Well, to be fair, the third wife has never been found, so she’s only legally dead. Why didn’t the gun control lobby stand on end in this case? Well, that’s because the second wife drowned in a bathtub and the third wife was likely hacked up and thrown into separate containers. No guns involved. If someone wants to kill someone else, a gun is not required. In fact, the presence of guns actually would decrease cases like these because victims would be able to defend themselves.

Another example of Second Amendment necessity came after Hurricane Katrina. The people of New Orleans needed guns to defend themselves, their families, and what few possessions they had left. The streets were filled with looters, rapists, and the absolute scum of the Earth. For every positive, there’s a negative. In this case, as much as Katrina brought out the good in people, there were a few people in whom it brought out the worst. This is proof that the Second Amendment is not “antiquated,” as the Left claims. Rather, it is as relevant and necessary as it was in the late 1700s.

Now, I’ll admit that I am in favor of psychological background checks before the issuance of a weapons permit, but that is not an infringement on the Second Amendment. Nothing is completely absolute, and that includes rights. Cases like the Virginia Tech massacre would never have happened had Cho Seung-Hui been processed through a psychological background check. 

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is angry about the new ruling. And why shouldn’t he be? If the gun control ban passes and crime rates go down, it’ll prove that his detached, failed, big government city policies are worthless. Neither Daley nor his father has been able to clean out crooked cops or clean up Chicago’s south side and inner city. When citizens can legally get guns to defend their families, the people of Chicago will see that Daley has failed them; the people will surely vote him out of office. And it’s about time. No wonder he’s so vehemently opposed to the Constitution.

If a government fails the people, as has apparently happened in my hometown, the people have a right to protect themselves as they see fit. Clearly, the City of Chicago can’t do it for us. May this be the last time the Chicago Government fails the people this badly. We can only pray that this leads to a massive overhaul of the over-inflated bureaucrats that run my Windy City.

            “Global Warming” is a fallacy. At best, it’s an overreaction to a naturally occurring condition; at worst, it’s a bald-faced lie designed to scare Americans (and global citizens in general) into buying into a “green” agenda and increased Government control over industry.

            The Liberal Elite has tried this before, only last time the scare-tactic headlines claimed that the Earth would end as a result of “Global Cooling.” Nevertheless, political correctness aside, the Global Cooling movement was shot down and shunned by rational scientists and politicians alike. But more importantly, the voters rejected it. Now, we’re not so lucky.

            Obviously, voters are buying into the Global Warming alarmism, and they are allowing themselves to literally be scared green. But the miserable excuse for science that is behind the Global Warming elite has gained a dangerous new weapon in their arsenal; it’s a weapon that their Global Cooling predecessors never had: guts.

            One such brazen scientist had the gall to declare that oil CEOs and, by extension, scientists who see the Global Warming lie for what it is, be indicted. He says this in front of a Senate Committee (link below).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html

            Could this be a more apparent example of Leftist censorship? Anyone who disagrees with the politically correct, Liberal-friendly point of view (forget that it’s outright dishonest) or dares to present an opposing argument needs to be censored. They’ve been trying the same thing with their attempt to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine (an assault on free speech that is designed to terminate conservative talk radio because the Left can’t compete in this medium).

            Where do Liberals get the idea that anyone who disagrees with them can be silenced? America was founded on the ideas of capitalism and opposing ideals. The idea is competition fosters solution. We, as citizens, must all fight and compete to prove that we have the better idea. If a minority of citizens are subscribing to your ideas, then that means you’ve lost. But, instead, the Left is being given carte blanche to try to force people into their way of thinking. The political correctness idea is to blame.

            Make no mistake, readers, this push for prosecution of corporate heads and men of sound science is just the latest in the Liberal campaign to quiet anyone with the blessings of common sense and the courage to fight for individual beliefs. If we’re against the Global Warming lie, they say we want to destroy the planet. If we oppose gay marriage, then we’re “homophobes.” If we want low taxes, then we’re accused of being “greedy.” The list seems to grow daily. And, sadly, my friends, there is no clear end in sight. 

If john McCain was ever ahead of Barack Obama, he’s not now. And we, as a party are in trouble.  Senator Obama presents a dangerous combination for the world of politics: JFK’s personal presentation and media adoration, and political stances that make Jimmy Carter seem moderate. This could be detrimental to the future of America.

One Fox News analyst who appeared this week on The O’Reilly Factor claimed that the media loved the newly christened BHO more than they did JFK. So what can we, the Republican Party, do to ensure that there is never an Obama Administration? Well, first, we need to assess the situation from a campaign/PR perspective. And since the media wants Senator Obama to look like President Kennedy, we have to remember that Kennedy barely won the popular vote in 1960; he was only .1% ahead of Richard Nixon. Nixon had a “rough around the edges” manner about him, and he was less polished than Kennedy. But fortunately, our 2008 guy isn’t Nixon. He’s Eisenhower.

In the 1950s, everybody liked Ike. He had a public appeal that made him seem like everybody’s grandpa. America wanted to support the man in the wooden chair who had plenty of war stories, even if he didn’t necessarily want to tell them all. We have a personable, kindly, grandfatherly war hero on the ticket. That’s the side Senator McCain needs to play up right now. Because, sad as it is, most people couldn’t care less about politics. They vote for the candidate who seems relatable and can win their heart, if not necessarily their head. I truly believe that the new Ike can and will beat the new JFK, but McCain needs to snap to that transition quickly; voters will want time to adjust to a 1950s-influenced race.

Second, until Obama secured his party’s nomination, there was no rush for Senator McCain to pick a running mate. Technically, there still isn’t, but Ike needs someone who will clean up and polish the ticket, which means we can’t pick Dick. Also, if McCain picks a running mate soon (I know the convention isn’t until Sept. 1), he will temporarily upstage Obama and he will split himself in two. In this case, that’s a good thing. Two full-on campaigning machines are stronger than one. But whom would Senator McCain want?

Whoever Senator Obama picks to run with, the Democratic ticket will be polished and clean-cut. While Republicans will read this as elitism, the media will see it as presentation skills. Senator McCain already has somewhat of a coarser impression than most other politicians; he’s down to earth and real. McCain is eternally tangible. So the only thing that would logically balance that is a polished running mate. The best bet for this is Governor Mitt Romney.

Romney presents an element that no republican president or vice president has had in recent history: that same polished finish that our Democratic rivals have had a monopoly on for what seems like an eternity. Plus, Romney will win over the hard Right of the party and balance the ticket geographically. Northeast meets Southwest looks pretty good to the casual, superficial voter. I’m sure that certain elements of our party will have complaints against Governor Romney taking the VP slot, but this time, it’s truly what’s best for the McCain Campaign.

So these are the aesthetic choices that McCain has to tackle before September, and the sooner the better. McCain is an intelligent and capable man and the best choice for the next President of the United States. And it will take more than a few town hall meetings with favorable crowds to secure that position. Remember, the Dems think they’re running the new JFK. So we’ll show them that the new Eisenhower can do in 2008 what Nixon couldn’t in 1960. If McCain doesn’t take this advice (or any parallel advice), I’m willing to bet that his poll numbers will continue to fall, and victory will be impossible to ensure in November. 

            The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This has never been truer than in the case of the environmental lobby. It’s trendy to be green. It’s fashionable to buy “biodegradable” products and drive an ethanol car. And, for a while, I was all for it. I have always known that “Global Warming” is a fallacy (see BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle), but I overlooked the Leftist/green movement lie because I knew that it would probably be better for the environment. So what if my CD comes in a cardboard case? I could live with that. But now, it seems that these “green” measures are doing more harm than good.

            Let’s start with ethanol. The corn-based fuel supposedly was cheaper and easier on the air. This was a lie. Maybe ethanol costs less directly at the gas pump, but Americans are already paying through the nose at the supermarket. As more corn is used for fuel, less is available for food, so it will cost more. Moreover, as corn prices increase, the prices of other foods also increase. It’s happening already. Watch the prices at your local grocery store move in tandem with the prices at the gas pump. And new studies are showing that it releases just as much (if not more) carbon as regular gasoline. There’s no upside here.

            No ethanol? Okay, we’ll buy hybrid vehicles. Nope, bad idea. Hybrids are dangerous in their low speeds and weak power. Watch a hybrid car try to run on it’s little battery. You’ll have plenty of time, it’ll probably be moving at about 5 miles per hour.  And the current hybrids on the market are only making, at best, 33 miles per gallon (2008 Chevy models). I hate to break it to you, but cars have been making 30 mpg or better since 2002. New non-hybrid Fords are also making 33mpg, so why buy a hybrid? I don’t know, maybe you have a vested interest in playing games with public safety.

            Next is the “bring-your-own-bag movement.” The idea is that you buy a reusable tote and take it to the store with you. You use that instead of the plastic or paper bags at the checkout. Sounds good, right? But you will eventually throw it out. Sooner or later, that bag will bite the dust and you will throw it out. The problem is that many of these bags have been treated with chemicals to avoid deterioration with repeated use. That will not make it easier for Earth to break it down. It will actually take less time for those “horrible” plastic Wal-Mart bags to be totally destroyed.

            Also, according to a new book by Iain Murray, The Really Inconvenient Truths, most other Liberal causes do more harm to the environment than they’d like to admit, such as pesticides. “They’re toxic gasses,” the Left shouts. But they forgot that those pesticides controlled diseases like malaria, which actually kills more people in Africa than AIDS. The Left banned that treatment on environmental causes. How noble.

            We all already know about the hypocrisy of the green movement. Al Gore’s private jet and megalo-mansion, their apparent ignorance of the fact that decaying fish in the ocean release more carbon into the air than every car on Earth combined, their absent knowledge of the fact that humans can account for under 0.5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere and that the other 99.5% is natural (i.e. trees, animals, etc.). But if they’re really doing more harm than good, they need to pack it in. For the good of the planet, and for American sanity.

UPDATE (06/05/08):

The Heritage Foundation has released a new study that has found that the new Lieberman-Warner environmental protection bill could cost 500,000 jobs and over $125 billion by 2025, and there would be little to no environmental benefit. Check it out Here:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/alc_027.cfm

            It seems that our individual States have some priority issues. For two or three years now, I’ve been writing to Governor Blagojevich (my State, Illinois) about Jessica’s Law—a mandatory 20 or 25 year minimum sentence for child sex offenders. Both by email and written letter, the Governor will not reply, even though Illinois is one of only eight States who have not yet embraced some version of Jessica’s Law. And yet, even though the safety of the State’s children is still in question, Gay Marriage has gotten statewide attention in the wake of California’s recent decision to legalize the institution.

            I’m a big proponent of traditional marriage, but that’s really not the issue here. I’m wondering how people can be so concerned with letting a Gay couple play house, but not even bat an eyelash at the fact that sex offenders are being recycled like plastic bottles on Earth Day.

Our State’s children are in constant danger, but random sampling of my teenage peers revealed that only one out of twenty people I asked had even heard of Jessica’s Law (and he didn’t even know what it was, he just knew the name). Everyone knows about Gay Marriage, whichever sides of the issue people are on.

Whether one is defending traditional marriage on the Right or playing games with a dictionary and a pen on the Left, everyone has some kind of opinion. It truly frightens me that people get so heated about the placement of one little privilege, but that they can’t even identify the most important legislation for child safety currently in the political arena—possibly in American history.

Even more alarming is that Governor Blagojevich doesn’t even seem to care. If he had any sense of morality at all, he would be on the news once a week urging the General Assembly to take action and get Jessica’s Law moving. He’d be personally informing people that Illinois is in desperate need. We must protect our children. But, instead, we hear about the march of the “Gay Rights” movement. We hear that Ellen DeGeneres is planning on “marrying” her girlfriend. That’s really newsworthy.

I know that these issues are totally separate, and I know that a Democrat like Blagojevich already has his priorities turned cockeyed. But there should be a stronger sense of involvement and priority within the people themselves. America is a Nation who defends the defenseless. Our most vulnerable citizens are those who can’t fight for themselves—the children. But instead of focusing on this issue and highlighting it constantly, we hear about a comedienne who wants to “marry” her girlfriend. This is what I’m left thinking watching the ten o’clock news.

This is the gigantic, flashing indicator light of a failure. Not just a failure in Illinois, but in America at large. Or, at least in the eight remaining States whose children are still waiting for the State legislatures to pass Jessica’s Law.