Instead of writing about the Pledge, I recently came across this article by iconic entertainer, Red Skelton, which sums it up so nicely.

Commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance

by Red Skelton

As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton’s teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.

I - – Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge - – Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.

Allegiance - – My love and my devotion.

To the Flag - – Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody’s job.

United - – That means that we have all come together.

States - – Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.

And to the Republic - – Republic–a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

For which it stands

One Nation - – One Nation–meaning, so blessed by God.

Indivisible - – Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty - – Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one’s own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.

And Justice - – The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.

For All - – For All–which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your country as it is mine.

And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Red Skelton

I like Newt Gingrich’s proposal for Lincoln-Douglas style debates, but we also need a candidate assessment tool with a strong relationship to job performance. For America’s most important job, we need America’s “ultimate job interview.” We need “Presidential Apprentice.”

On the campaign trail, candidates are afforded many opportunities to reveal their communication skills, intelligence and temperament. While these attributes are useful in running a community organization, they may not be enough to lead our great country.

Consider that Carter, a trained Nuclear Physicist, was intelligent but succumbed to “analysis paralysis.” Clinton was smart and slick but his presidency was problematic. Obama is an intelligent communicator with a cool temperament; however, he often shirks from crucial decisions in favor of political expediency. For example, development of our energy sector would create jobs and spur our economy; yet, caught between two of his competing constituencies – labor and environmentalists – he delayed decision on the Keystone oil pipeline.

The rigors of the campaign trail favor smart candidates who give pretty speeches and are prolific fundraisers, astute panderers and quick-witted in debates. Intelligence is a starting point, but we need a campaign test that reveals other traits required to be an effective president such as leadership, judgment, honesty and problem solving prowess.

Research shows that work sample tests have the highest validity in predicting job performance. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, for example, lists work sample tests as having the highest validity (degree to which assessment scores are related to future job performance) out of 15 different assessment tools.

Work sample tests focus on the actual tasks performed on the job; they’re based on the premise that the best predictor of future behavior is behavior observed under similar situations.

This is how NBC describes Celebrity Apprentice: “Just as in the regular ‘Apprentice,’ the celebrities will be subjected to long hours, grueling mental challenges, personality clashes, and intense scrutiny – all without the help of their regular support system of agents, managers, and personal assistants.” With a little tinkering, that sounds like a useful way to help an often bewildered public choose our next president.

In addition to debates, presidential candidates could be invited to participate in Presidential Apprentice. They’d be given real-world scenarios, and the candidate, as project manager, could select his or her team. A potential task could be: “Develop a plan to stimulate private sector job growth without increasing the federal deficit.” The plan would not be just a list of steps, but include a method to usher it through Congress, and to implement it with the fewest regulations possible.

We could give them one week, maybe two if we sacrifice a debate for this more predictive assessment tool. TV cameras will be privy to their internal machinations, including assembling the team, establishing report structures, milestones, planning, leadership, execution and monitoring.

During this brief “Presidential Apprentice” curriculum we might sneak a peak into how our leaders marshal resources under deadline pressure, not just how well they read from a teleprompter to cherry-picked audience members.

Perhaps in a televised town hall format, the project groups will assemble to deliver their executive report. Video clips of their group interactions can be followed by audience questions. Voting or dramatic boardroom showdowns, as in the progenitor series, aren’t necessary; the public can draw their own conclusions.

This brief “Presidential Apprentice” program will unveil our candidates’ skills in solving real-world problems unprotected from the shield of spin-merchants and coddling advisers who could coach a neophyte to avoid direct answers.

Another compelling benefit is that the show would educate voters who might not otherwise be engaged. Polls show that many Americans can’t name all the branches of government, or they believe that Karl Marx helped write our constitution. Surveys by Pew Research indicate that politicians get elected by people who don’t know their platforms. No wonder some voters are duped by catchy slogans like “Change we can believe in.”

The “Presidential Apprentice” would help rectify this: lured by the high entertainment of watching highfalutin politicians stumble through project milestones, viewers mightn’t even realize they’re being educated at the same time.

Resumes can be tweaked by clever politicians, but an apprenticeship will not lie. Let’s inject this entertaining yet reliable measurement device into laborious presidential campaigns. The voting public should know whether our next leader can run something other than his glib mouth. By Noel S. Williams.

The most disgusting example of the media lynching was the interview by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s questions were predictably misleading. That’s to be expected because they cater their content to a small (and I mean small) leftist fringe. He relentlessly attempted to cast Herman Cain as a race traitor through innuendo like accusing him of not participating in civil rights demonstrations, insulting his father, and misrepresenting passages from his book. I concluded than this Ivy League elitist has ordained himself with the authority to declare who is black. Although Herman Cain gave a spirited interview, he showed the obvious restraint of a presidential candidate leaving the host visibly frustrated by his defiance. I guarantee that if this was 1840, O’Donnell would have filled Cain’s back with welts like the Democrats used to do to noncompliant blacks back then. Nonetheless, since I am not a presidential candidate, and have no restraint and can directly address his racist assumptions.

I challenge Mr. O’Donnell’s and his newfound authority to a “black contest.” As a conservative black American, your racial integrity is challenged regularly. While I believe that there is no standard “black experience,” there are experiences, conditions and traditions that tie the millions of African-Americans together that are distinctly different from other groups of Americans. Unfortunately, racist liberals like O’Donnell and self-proclaimed “black leaders” like Cornell West have given themselves the authority to decide who can call themselves black.

For years conservative African-Americans have tried to convince brethren that despite political differences, they are no different. Too often these pleas fall on deaf ears as their “black cards” are revoked for simply exercising constitutional rights. At the same time, people like Obama, whose descendents were not forced into slavery, and Bill Clinton who continues to be touted as the first “black” president.

Now’s the time for liberals to stop all of the innuendo and baseless accusations. Since they are quick to insult the racial integrity of conservative blacks, here is their chance to prove it. Mr. O’Donnell, let’s mutually agree on a measurable standard based on the experiences of descendants of enslaved Africans in America, pitting myself against President Obama. If I lose, I am willing to profess that my conservative beliefs make me a sellout to my community. If you lose, you must profess to your audience that you are indeed the biggest racist in America.

I realize the that idea of a “black contest” may be considered immature. So is having to rebut being called an Uncle Tom during an otherwise intelligent debate on policy. I am addressing absurdity in-kind. I fully expect O’Donnell to cower inside of his ivory tower at MSNBC by ignoring me. That’s why I need you help to me challenge the racists at MSNBC. Copy and paste this editorial with “Don’t Be A Coward O’Donnell, Accept The Challenge” in the title. E-mail it directly to Lawrence O’Donnell at thelastword@msnbc.com. Get all of your friends to do the same. O’Donnell acts like a tough guy when standing on the bully pulpit, time to find out if that MSNBC mascot is really a peacock or chicken.

Andre Harper is the founder and president of The Knowledge Movement, LLC and author of The Citizens Guide To Defeating the Mainstream Media. He can be reached at www.AndreHarper.com.

These self-described anarchists have provided us with a clear contrast of our opposing political philosophies. These protesters range from spoiled trust fund baby to vagrants fueled by greed and a desire to use the heavy-hand of government, sustained civil disobedience and intimidation to steal from those who have earned.
These revolutionaries are the base of the Democratic Party. Water-boarding would be the only way to persuade these people to vote Republican. They are the street soldiers Democrats rely on every election. They are liberalism. Lets contrast the two philosophies:

Protest behavior- While the media continues to anticipate the eventual violent eruption at a Tea Party rally, there have been no arrests in two years and with virtually a non-existent police presence. Hundreds of conservatives frequently assemble with no incident. On the other hand, municipalities have to exhaust increased tax-payer resources in preparation of any leftist gatherings. In only two weeks on Wall Street, there have been over 700 arrests.
Jobs- The liberal protesters have demanded “full employment.” This is accomplished in one of two ways. 1) Central planning where bureaucrats decide citizen roles and wages based needs of “the greater good” of society or 2) a fully functioning private sector with little government intervention allowing businesses to thrive and individuals to choose careers based on personal interests and needs of the marketplace. Conservatives acknowledge that some careers are more lucrative than others but there is always honor in a days work.
Income- The liberal protesters have demanded “Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment” which is code for communism. Wages are based on several factors including education, experience, working conditions, location, etc. Conservatives understand that minimum wage is not a “living wage.” Minimum wage is not designed to be a career destination. It’s serves as the entry into the workforce best utilized by teenagers, transient workers and those getting back on their feet.

Conservatives should use these protests as an opportunity to negate all false accusations perpetrated by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. Liberals, through their actions and words, are proving that they are real enemies of America. We should appreciate them giving us a glimpse of the certain violence, intolerance and scarcity to expect if they take control of the country. On the other hand, our message has been consistent. We cannot guarantee outcomes but we can protect opportunity.

In 2008, Obama campaigned on fundamental change and finally we have an accurate illustration of what he meant. I guarantee you, this is not what independent voters want for their children’s future. Conservatives will waste a golden opportunity if we don’t use this protest to show what America’s future will be if we don’t stop the cancer of liberalism from spreading. Americans need to understand that liberalism is designed for a few smart people to achieve power by manipulating many dumb people while everyone else suffers. So while, the useful idiots are having fun dressing up like zombies and getting arrested on the streets of New York, the likes of George Soros, Van Jones, Frances Fox Piven, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have already begun to harness this energy for their own personal gain.

Andre Harper is the founder and president of The Knowledge Movement, LLC and author of The Citizens Guide To Defeating the Mainstream Media. He can be reached at www.AndreHarper.com.

President Obama is ignoring the first rule of holes — when you’re in one, stop digging.

But no, after putting forth a $447 billion so-called jobs plan (which was really just a jobs plan for public employees and construction workers), he has now doubled down on tax hikes as his way of not only paying for that plan, but tackling the deficit it would increase.

So yesterday he unveiled a $1.5 trillion tax hike as the way of tackling $3 trillion of the deficit over the next 10 years. It came with the usual Obama it’s-my-way-or-the-highway threats.

“We just can’t cut our way out of this hole,” he insisted.

“Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get,” he added. “We can’t afford to do both. This is not class warfare. It’s math.”

Well, he at least anticipated arguments on the other side — and they are many.

Any responsible plan to cut “loopholes” in the corporate tax code has always been coupled with a reduction in the rate that would make it something less than among the highest in the world — thus sending so many U.S. companies offshore the minute they start to grow.

And all those loopholes Obama wants to close — deductions for mortgages and charitable contributions for high earners — well, responsible plans to do that (such as that of his own blue ribbon deficit reduction commission) have also coupled that with a lower rate.

This plan does nothing to address the lingering problems with Social Security. It makes by Obama’s own admission only “modest” adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid. And even those Obama threatens to veto if they are not coupled with his precious taxes on the “rich.”

The only good news yesterday was that at least he didn’t ask for another joint session of Congress to advance this utterly lackluster plan.

USCCB – The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of …minors by Catholic priests in the US, is the study released by  by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This recent report (2011) reiterates Phillip Jenkins/Penn State/”Pedophiles and Priests’”, reported 9 years ago.

What the media reported was vastly different. Corrections are as follows:

1) “Catholic priests were almost always the sexual deviant” was incorrect. Clergy, in general, are no more likely to be involved with sexual misconduct than any other citizen.  Because of accurate records kept by the Catholic Church, few have any idea if a Catholic cleric has a higher or lower rate for teachers/abusers, residential counselors, social workers, or scout masters. From Jenkins we hear: “Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics”. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as had Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, HareKrishnah’s—and the list goes on.”       

2) “Being celibate leads more to sexual indiscretions” is commonly quoted, and quite incorrect. Catholic priests have no monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors. Even though news media typically see sexual abuse as crises of celibacy, priests actually have a lower rate of offense that their non-celibate counterparts. As stated in Our Sunday Visitor (2/25/96) “…the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy.” In other words, clerical sexual misconduct is by no means just a Catholic problem. [Catholic Matters: PEDOPHILE PRIESTS ?]

3)  The “AP” reported on 8/09 that sex abuse claims by Protestant clergy reported by Church Mutual, GuideOne, and Brotherhood Mutual amounted to almost 260 reports each year. The annual average of complaints by Catholic clergy revealed an average of 228 “credible accusations”. Bottom line, there’s no denominational boundaries with sexual abuse. As Jenkins writes, “The story of clerical abuse is bad enough without turning it into an unjustifiable of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.”

4) A “pedophilia” crisis (sexual attraction of adult towards those below puberty) was incorrect. The correct terminology was “ephebophilia” (homosexual attracted to very young men). Homosexuality has always been the actual problem. About 40 priests, or about 1.8% of the whole, were likely guilty of some misconduct with minors.  Any offending perpetrators were simply members of the Catholic Church—not representative of the Faith.

In Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture – George Weigel …comments on the John Jay report mentioned above. This College reveals most sexual abuse takes place within families. They conclude the sexual abuse of the young is a widespread and horrific societal problem, not principally a Catholic priest problem.

Between 1950 and 2002, the John Jay study revealed about five young people in 100,000 may have been abused by a priest, but the average in the US  general population was 134 per 100,000. A sexual problem exists alright, but it’s not at its worst with any church.

In the John Jay study, the Catholic bishops (and society as a whole) had no idea the magnitude of the abuse problem. Bishops thought these perpetrators could be cured and returned to active ministry. But with stringent checks routinely done by the Catholic Church (background checks, specific numbers of chaperones/students, windows in all doors, etc…), it’s said to be the safest environment for young people today.

It seems the Catholic Church is much safer than public schools, and especially the family in general. Will the mainstream media change their tune about who the major perpetrator of child sexual abuse is? Not likely. The Catholic Church is a favorite target.

No doubt the heinous nature of some Catholic priests has been totally unacceptable. But even more sexual abuse from other religions, the public school system, and familial abuses is rarely discussed. But the Catholic Church still gets pelted from “rock-throwers”. The Church also knows worse atrocities have always been accused.

The problem is not one of corrupt doctrine, but of abusers not being true to their duty, promises, or faith. It sounds as if the mainstream media is doing the same thing.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

One hundred and sixty-three years ago, a small group of conservative women met in Seneca Falls, New York to demand equal pay for equal work, the right to own property, and the right to vote. The so called “Seneca Falls Convention” was the birthplace for all American women’s rights battles that were to follow.  These “feminists” made it clear, they didn’t want to dissolve the family structure, they didn’t want to abolish religion, and they didn’t want to punish men. They simply wanted the same legal protection and control over their work product and property that men enjoyed.  Their goal, in part, was to insure that through their vote, their private opinions about the governance of their community and the country carried the same weight as that of a man.

In much the same way that conservative women in the public eye and particularly in politics today, are attacked, maligned, belittled and degraded by the mainstream media,  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucrecia Mott, and other speakers (male and female) at the convention were roundly eviscerated by much of the press. Some newspapers supported the concept of legal equality while doubting its functionality, others admonished women with a stern “get back to the kitchen and the laundry where you belong.” Their “womaninity” was challenged, their husbands were belittled as cuckolds, and their fitness as mothers was debated in newspapers across the country. Ministers preached sermons against the “unnatural ascent” of women to a place of equality. And perhaps most shockingly, women’s groups sprung up to picket against women’s rights!

It took nearly seventy years of conferences, speeches, marches, letters, petitions, and legal appeals for the goal of the Seneca Falls Convention to be partially realized, with the ratification of the 19^th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote their own conscience. Though there had been some advances on a state level in a small handful of states, concerning some of the other issues, particularly the right of women to own or inherit property, full legal equality was still elusive.

One of the main stumbling blocks, preventing women from being made equal to men in the eyes of the law, were the activities of a small, vocal, radical organization, called the Women’s National Labor Union. The head of this controversial group, Matilda Gage, had originally embraced the equality movement. However, her attacks on the church and continued reference to abortion, spousal rape issues put her at odds with the largely religious political community. Because of the WNLU activities and commentaries, politicians were worried that a vote for legal female equality would be the death nill to church and family.

Two Republicans from Kansas (Senator Charles Curtis and Representative Daniel Anthony Jr.) attempted to quell the controversy and create an instrument that would grant women equality under the law without addressing the controversial social and religous issues. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment would insure that men and women had the same rights and protections under the law. The original Seneca Falls Convention and hundreds of conventions that followed outlined the harsh realities that inequality established.

In a time when few occupations were open to women, those that were paid women half of their male counterpart. The argument of the day (and an argument still heard today) was that men, as head of household, need to earn more to support a family. Of course the fact that many women were forced into outside employment in order to support a family when a spouse died was ignored. Women who found themselves head of a household (typically due to the injury, death, or the military service of their husband) faced abject poverty with little recourse. While the sentiment of the ERA seemed simple enough, Labor unions and Northern Democrats came out in full force against the Amendment, effectively blocking it for nearly fifty years.

In 1950, the Senate took up debate on the Equal Rights Amendment. Unions and Democrats claimed that their desire to block the ERA hinged on the terminology. Under the Equal Rights Amendment, women would be “equal” which the Unions and many opponents to the legislation read as “the same.” They charged that the “special privledges” offered to women by virtue of their sex would be striped and women would be forced into the draft and front lines during war times, be compelled to work “unseasonable” hours, blocked from motherhood and housekeeping duties, and forced to share a bathroom with men. Tennessee Democrat Estes Kefauver, went so far as to claim that the ERA would “eliminate rape as a crime.”

During the final hours of the debate, Arizona Democrat Carl Hayden, offered an amendment to the ERA which effectively killed the bill. The Hayden Rider as it was called stated, “The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.” For supporters of the ERA, the Hayden Rider essentially meant that women would be deemed equal, unless some special “benefit” or exemption rendered them unequal or “equal as long as we allow you to be.” Unions and Democrats smugly declared their support of the ERA with the Hayden Rider providing them the ability to claim that they were for women’s equality while effectively keeping them from equality. Even those conservative feminist groups that had originally brought the ERA forward were forced to ask for the amendment to be rejected, due to the inclusion of the Hayden Rider.

In the early 1960’s most of the original, conservative, feminists had passed away. This left a vacume in leadership of organizations that had developed deep pockets, strong political ties with Republican politicians, and an extensive media platform. By the late 1960’s former leaders of counter culture groups, radical anti-American organizations, socialists, and communists recognized that they could better project their issues by occupying the empty feminist movement positions and taking advantage of their resources and contacts. These new “feminists” rejected the Republican Party and the Equal Rights Amendment and instead began to court union money and power and align themselves with Hollywood and the left.

Women who believed in the principles of the ERA were outraged when Republican politicians continued to reject the Amendment. Thanks largely to biased press coverage, the American people came to believe that the Republican party rejected female equality. Since the Hayden Rider version of the ERA continued to be the Amendment offered, conservatives could not back a bill that made women selectively equal. Democrats and radical, “second wave” feminists used the rejection and disinformation tactics to declare themselves as the only groups interested in women’s rights and issues. This resulted in a dramatic shift in the political landscape, with women being declared as solid Democrat voters.

In the 1840’s the term “feminist” meant a person who believed that men and women should have equal protection under the law.  By the early 1970’s the same term was associated with abortion, sex without consequences, single parent families, lesbianism, homosexuality, and a rejection of traditional roles and values. The man hating, vitriol spewing, lesbian, became the face of modern feminism. Powerful lobbying organizations like the National Organization for Women (NOW), claimed the right to speak on behalf of all women and to determine which issues were “women’s” issues. To this day, these organizations continue to distort the history of the feminist movement and the conservative women who waged battle for legal equality.

As a child, I was taught that nice people, and in particular nice girls, didn’t talk about religion, politics, or money in public. Those issues were private and should be discussed only in the privacy of the home or church. It wasn’t that women’s opinions were considered less important than men’s opinions. It was simply that there was an appropriate time and place for everything and assaulting people with one’s own opinions on such personal issues as religion and politics lacked respect for others.

So when women like Gloria Steinem made sweeping generalizations as to the lack of worth of marriage, men, family, children, religion, sexual morals, and traditional values, there was no response from an embarrassed right who treated such a fundamental breach of etiquette as one would a bad smell. We simply smiled and excused ourselves from the offensive behavior. Unfortunately, this ultimately meant that the only female voices to be heard in the political arena were that of ultra liberals claiming to speak for all women. A conservative woman who might speak up was labeled backwards and ignorant. And if a man spoke up against the ultra-liberal agenda, he was branded a misogynist and chauvinist.

Unfortunately, our silence has resulted in decades of decisions being made for us that do not represent our values or our goals. After nearly 40 years of organizations like NOW, declaring that American women want abortion as birth control, the rejection of religion, open homosexuality, and a complete dissolution of marital and family roles, it’s no wonder that the media reacted with such surprise and anger when conservative women came out in force as voters and candidates for the Tea Party movement.

Decades of working hard behind the scenes to undermine family values, project hedonistic lifestyles, celebrate promiscuity, and paint America as a place for which citizens should apologize, was temporarily washed away when a woman was called to serve her country and arrived on the national stage with a baby on her hip, a rifle over her shoulder, and a Bible in her hand.  Love her or hate her, if you want to know what the media and the ultra-liberals think of conservatives and in particular conservative women, you need only look to the manner in which Sarah Palin and her family are degraded, ridiculed, and maligned.

Conservative women, many who still feel uncomfortable at the idea of discussing personal beliefs in public have found new freedoms on the internet. Women in the thousands have embraced internet radio stations where they can talk, from the privacy of their own homes, with like minded people around the country. Others have taken to blogging their feelings and experiences or discussing issues on Face Book and Twitter. For the first time in history, tens of thousands of conservative women are making a stand. Not on “The View” or on the street corner, but discretely and directly into the homes of other long silent conservative families.

The Tea Party has an unprecedented opportunity to create life long loyalties and both voter and financial donor machines by truly embracing the millions of conservative women voters who have been without a political voice for decades. But it is all there to lose. If the Tea Party follows the examples set by both the Republicans and Democrats and largely ignore women voters, they can’t be successful long term. But if the Tea Party reaches out to women and considers the value of our vote equal to that of the men typically courted by politicians, they will have an impenetrable force.

As the old saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Unfortunately, the ultra-liberals have spent decades co-opting the influence of the hand of women by creating factory style indoctrination centers in the form of public schools. Sex education (as early as kindergarten), revisionist versions of history, the vilifying of whites and of Caucasian cultures, demonizing America as a global bully, labeling our capitalistic system as evil, glorifying single parent households and homosexual lifestyles, and labeling Christians as backward oppressors all conspire to limit the influence of parents and traditional values. Young girls are taught that to be a mother and home maker is lazy and selfish. Yet, a woman who works thus forcing her own children to go into childcare, is ambitious and modern. This of course helps to perpetuate the cycle and has resulted in several generations of young people without a sure moral compass or strong ethical foundation upon which to build a life. It is these very people who fall victim to the socialist agenda and that is of course the point.

Conservative voters are ready to take back control of the public schools. We are eager to return the nobility of the American work ethic to the class room and to insure that education and indoctrination are not interchangeably used terms. While conservatives want their children to understand other cultures and embrace the differences in values and belief systems around the world, we don’t want this achieved at the expense of our own traditions and heritage. America is a melting pot and children attending public schools do come from a wide variety of religious and cultural backgrounds, but this shouldn’t preclude the teaching of ethics, morals, and appropriate behavior. A Tea Party that embraces this fundamental “women’s issue” not only satisfies current voters, but insures an educated electorate of the future. Engaging women voters about fundamental changes to the public school system is a wonderful way to approach conservative women who may have avoided direct involvement with politics in the past.

But education isn’t simply about the children. Tens of millions of Americans don’t know their own history. They don’t know that conservatives created the Civil Rights movement and fought against the left for decades to win equality for minorities and women. They don’t know that feminists were originally conservatives who believed that a woman should have control over her body, her work product, and her property but were attacked (and even murdered) by Democrats and labor unions. Money spent now, before the election cycle really begins, to educate the American people about the truth of our own history can have tremendous and long lasting benefits to the Tea Party, who themselves revisited history to make a point and engage and electorate.

The Tea Party can also have a tremendous impact upon and appeal to women voters by addressing health care. While we all want to see the ObamaCare travesty eradicated, even when this goal is achieved health care problems do exist that need to be addressed. The Tea Party can gain ground by conceptualizing real, practical, working solutions for the health care problems that affected middle class families. The failure of Republicans and Democrats should be our guide. Both parties offer sweeping promises but never bother to actually create solutions. Develop and publicize a working solution, and the Tea Party can not only solidify their conservative base, but also pull in Republican and moderate Democrat men and women to the party.

There really is no such thing as “women’s issues.” Men care just as much as women do about their children.  Men are just as concerned about health care and the economy as are their female counterparts. But women have been the focus of decades of manipulation and indoctrination and have largely fallen for the lies of the liberals. We have bought into the “second wave feminists” version of femininity which is more porn star than lady. We have bought into the idea that a woman who raises children and takes care of a home is “just” a housewife. Yes we may have veered off course and temporarily forgotten that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” But millions of us have awoken and are passionate about the platform for which the Tea Party stands.

And so, just as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who addressed the audience on that hot day in July, 163 years ago in Seneca Falls, New York, encouraged women to take responsibility for their owns lives and not let the continued degradation of women at the hands of others determine their worth, the Tea Party must continue to embrace and encourage conservative women to stand up, take positions of responsibility and power in the political process and be forces of positive change in their own communities.

Embrace us, include us, and succeed. Ignore us at your own peril, for the conservative woman now knows, the hand that pulls the voting machine lever rules the world.

One could kill the mother, but no more babies would be produced after that. But with humans, the mother is a “life”. It would be unacceptable to kill her. But many decide to kill the baby instead. Wasn’t it thought to be unacceptable to kill “life”?

But humans fall back on Roe v. Wade, not only to justify, but to claim as ‘legal’ the killing of unborn children. It’s difficult to answer the question—what happens to the soul if I abort? Then we comprehend that diabolical accomplice—Planned Parenthood of America (PPA).

Do Americans want their tax money ($404.9 million/yr) paying to create death(www.NRLC.org)?  But PPA took in over a billion dollars in 2009, when over 90% of their services involved abortion and contraception.

Information from www.fidelis.org reveals that PPA provides birth control to more than 2.5 million women every year, but fertility treatments to fewer than 400. As we know, birth control makes the uterus inhospitable, which usually aborts a fertilized embryo at the earliest stage.

PPA was founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. She argued “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Even today’s president (Cecile Richards) said de-funding PPA would result in “millions of women” not being able to get mammograms from PPA anymore. But all PPA facilities across America said they don’t do mammograms.

NRLC reveals 362,600 abortions/year will be done in 2011. How many times has PPA failed to notify a minor girl’s parents of her secret abortion, having statutory rape cases (recorded by more than 800 calls), and covering up for sexual predators and child rapists?

PhD Randall O’Bannon’s description of Planned Parenthood is child’s play compared to his expose in 2011: Planned Parenthood: Your Tax Dollars at Work. The unnerving fact is PPA (2006) was caught selling body parts to companies that sell them to others [Georgia Right To Life: Education >> Planned Parenthood].

Just in Kansas, PPA had more than 107 criminal charges (Father Frank’s Alerts) for sexual crimes, but none have stuck. PPA funding is the one thing Democrats are positively unwilling to cut. Harry Reid (S/D/Nv) wouldn’t even allow it to come up for a vote. As Reid declared, “Not only no, but H-LL NO!” 

The US House voted to de-fund Obamacare and PPA (two major pro-life bills: 240-185, and 241-185). The US Senate, with a slight Democrat majority, rejected both bills (47-53, and 42-58), so PPA funding was unaffected. Bottom line, for government funding to change, the Senate must change to Republican majority. Even Gallup reveals the majority of Americans are pro-life.

The defeat of both bills ensured the existing government deficit would balloon upward. Even with PPA expenditures smaller than ‘Obamacare’, cutting of PPA government support would lead to many other cuts.

Indiana’s recently passed law to defund PPA of any state tax dollars is under fierce attack from Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, threatening to pull the state’s $4.3 billion in Medicaid.  This puts the health care of low-income women at risk, and flaunts Indiana’s right to decide how to spend tax dollars. The results of this fight in Indiana may also affect other states considering cuts to PPA including Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Kansas and New Jersey.

Next presidential election, 33% of the Senate will be elected. PPA funding decisions can easily be swayed. The Declaration specifically protects “life” as Americans’ 3 existing rights. Founder Thomas Jefferson stated, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Never before has there been such a pronounced divide on one topic. States which will force our nation to either cease to exist, or emerge from the morass we see as socialist spending, and total degradation of “life” mentioned in the Declaration.   

This November we can decide exactly how we will proceed.

We need to adhere to that statement in our pledge, “One nation, under GOD, with liberty and justice for all”.

God help us if we make the wrong decision, because we will no longer be one nation.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net .

It’s no secret the mainstream media wallows in leftist propaganda, but when confronted with the proposition that most American journalists are registered Democrats they assure us they compartmentalize their personal views form their reporting.

Even if one is gullible enough to accept this it still begs the question of their choice of stories. Consider that Brian Williams, the left-teetering anchor of NBC Nightly news, at first ignored the sordid but newsworthy fiasco surrounding Weiner’s raunchy online behavior and his disrespect towards women. He was quick, however, to pounce on N.J. Gov Christie’s use of a state helicopter.

I’m more jaded than gullible, and with good reason. Several studies quantify that during the 2008 presidential campaign there were far more favorable stories of Obama than McCain; conversely, McCain was cast in negative light much more than Obama.

Not much has changed; indeed the MSM may be listing so far to the left they’re in danger of sinking into liberal orthodoxy. This past week ABC ran 4 stories about Weinergate, CBS ran 2 and NBC 5; contrast that to their coverage of Republican Mark Foley’s scandal in 2006. Unlike Weiner he resigned promptly; nevertheless, in a 12 day period the news networks ran 55 stories about Foley’s salacious Internet messages to pages. The events are not entirely analogous, but come on… 55. That reflects a double-standard based on party affiliation.

Eager to buy Weiner’s incredulous excuses about hacks and pranks despite his inability to say the “pecker photo” was his, media outlets ran sympathetic stories about the prevalence of computer hacking. The MSM’s mollycoddling of Weiner then took a bizarre turn during CNN’s Piers Morgan’s wacky interview with right-wing stalwart Ann Coulter.

While Morgan’s inflammatory assessment of the Tea Party movement being a bit like Hitler’s followers is headline-grabbing, there was something a bit more insidious about his questioning of Coulter. He used the word “instinctive” repeatedly to describe Coulter’s penchant for deflecting his questions into gratuitous attacks on Democrats. Wait a minute! I suddenly realized he’s doing that thing they talked about in Psych 101: projection bias. This smug elitist, asserting that Tea Partiers aren’t “the brightest of spellers,” was denying his own instincts by ascribing inherent prejudices to Coulter.

When Morgan then suggested that Coulter had “invented in her head” the notion that the MSM had rallied around Weiner I realized his condition is actually a bit more severe. This twit from Old Blighty was a bit barmy, perhaps brainwashed by liberal mantra. I wanted to believe he is just a quirky Brit, maybe a bit eccentric. But blimey, he went absolutely mental when he asserted that Andrew Breitbart, the conservative blogger who exposed Wiener’s, ahem, online package, wasn’t mistreated by the MSM.

Eventually I caught on: Morgan kept using the word “instinctive” because he was projecting his own unconscious impulses. He had succumbed to the tittle-tattle of the liberal-elitist cocktail circuit. His brainwashing so thorough, his prejudices so ingrained that he actually queried Coulter: “Who on mainstream media attacked Breitbart?”

I’m glad his psychological defense mechanisms are so strong otherwise he’d be stark raving bonkers when confronted by reality: Hello, your snootiness, just look across the hallway at CNN and you’ll see Jeffrey Toobin. He went on CNN’s air to defame Breitbart and downplay Weinergate as a “light-hearted story… a silly little thing.” Oh really, tell that to the women Weiner preyed upon as online chats about politics suddenly, incongruously, turned to his silly little thing.

The Daily Beast (home to “media expert” Howard Kurtz), MSNBC, Media Matters, Salon, CNN, NBC… among others all instinctively rallied to Weiner’s defense. CNN showed their colors as Wolf Blitzer played into Weiner’s defense by doing a story about computer hacking. They also gave Toobin a microphone to spout his instinctive prejudices and attack the messenger. NBC and CBS were probably the biggest weenies, at first choosing to quiver on the liberal sidelines lest their hypocrisy be exposed.

As Piers Morgan continued to snootily accuse Coulter of instinctive prejudice it occurred to me his condition is worse than denial and projection — he was exhibiting symptoms of full blown delusional disorder. That’s where someone can’t tell what is real from what is imagined. How else can you explain his assertion that Weiner’s initial defense about being hacked was “very persuasive… very, very clear”?

Blimey old chap, Weiner couldn’t even say whether the picture sent from his twitter account was his, instead conjuring legalistic twaddle about pictures being manipulated and dropped into accounts. He waffled when asked straightforward questions like “Is it possible it [the photo] is you?” or, “Do you have underwear like that?”

If that’s persuasive and very clear then let’s roast some more contaminated wienerschnitzel. By Noel S. Williams

The British press however, have had a distinct shift in attitude towards Obama. While they slobbered all over “campaign Obama,” their love affair with him and his family ended almost as soon as he took office. Between his breeches of protocol and etiquette, his administration’s icy attitude towards our historic ally, and his soft line on Muslim extremists, the Brits aren’t impressed.

So while the US media focused on Sarah Palin and her motorcycle ride, the British tabloids detailed Obama’s Memorial Day activities. After laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Solider, Obama (for the ninth straight week) headed for the links. And the British press went crazy.

For many in America, Memorial Day is more BBQs and parades than somber deliberation. But our cousins across the pond take their Memorial events very seriously and observe nationwide silences and solemn services. So they were horrified when Obama ran off to play golf on Memorial Day, branding him in the print media and television as being disrespectful, selfish, and decidedly un-Presidential.

This brings me to the “can” vs. “should” debate. Liberals in particular seem to have difficultly understanding the difference between the two. Can you yell fire in a movie theatre? Yes you “can.” But “should” you? Not unless you want to get arrested. Can you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge? Sure you “can.” But “should” you? Not unless you can fly. The point is, as long as you are physically and/or mentally capable, you “can” do almost anything. BUT everything that we do has consequences. It’s the weight or cost of those consequences that determine whether or not we “should” do something.

As the leader of the “free world,” a President’s role is not only that of Captain of the ship, it is also that of figurehead. He (or she) must give the impression of steady, vigilant helmsmanship during times of peace. He must give the impression of surety, strength of purpose, and steely resolve during times of war. And he must exhibit respectful, quiet contemplation during those times between. The presidency is a stressful job. From the day that the President is sworn into office until the day that he leaves, he is “on.” There aren’t any days off. He can’t take a break to act in an un-Presidential fashion on the weekends or holidays. Or rather, he “can” but he has to accept the consequences.

Of course Obama (or any other politician) isn’t focused 24 hours a day on one tragedy or difficulty or issue. But even though people know that their President has a multitude of issues with which to deal, from an emotional point of view they want to believe that their pain, suffering, tragedies ARE foremost in importance. The family living on Red Cross cots after a tornado destroys their entire town doesn’t care that the President wants to play golf. They want to believe that he is working day and night to make sure that their suffering is minimized, that he is working with FEMA and the National Guard and whoever else he can to make sure that they get the help that they need as soon as is humanly possible.

The parents who are mourning their child, killed in Afghanistan, or Iran, or on the Mexican border want the President to “know” their child, understand the great loss his or her death has caused, and contemplate the importance of their sacrifice. They don’t want to know that the President pitched a wreath and than took off to play golf or basketball. Can he? Sure. Should he? Hell no! It shows disrespect. It shows a lack of courtesy. And perhaps most importantly, it shows a complete lack of understanding. How can someone who is so disconnected to the sensitivities and values of the people be an effective leader? How can someone who doesn’t exhibit sound judgment be respected enough to command respect at home and abroad?

In the end, the US media does Obama no favors by diminishing his “bad” behavior. Sometimes a dose of media tough love is all it takes to snap a politician back into the realities of his job. The fact of the matter is that when the President fails to meet basic expectations, it affects the way that he is perceived around the globe, undermining both our position and our safety. It removes our ability to negotiate effectively on the global stage.

And this is not an Obama specific issue. Despite being a bright and thoughtful man, George Bush’s perceived lack of intelligence, due largely to a thick accent and a hostile media, contributed to a worldwide attitude shift against the United States. It was as if the world in general said “hey if Americans think that he is a joke, why should we respect him or a country that would elect him?”

The same perception of leadership is at play all around the world, all the time. Nicolas Sarkozy, the diminutive French President, married three times, (twice to models) is most well known for his designer clothing, alleged philandering, and trophy wives. Despite being a vigorous force for change, his dedication to strengthening world ties, and insuring that France play a larger, more aggressive role in world affairs, because of his behavior he is seen as a playboy, aristocrat.

By the same token, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s Prime Minister has fashioned himself as a sort of Slavic John Wayne. Many in his own country and abroad are willing to overlook human rights violations and near autocracy because he has been very successful in turning around the economy in Russia. This turn around has been possible in large part to his reputation as a “take no prisoners” (literally and figuratively) sort of leader.

From a conservative’s perspective, Obama has done a pretty crappy job as President. His policies have damaged our economy, our security, and our relationship with allies and foes alike. The fact that he doesn’t seem even remotely interested in appearing Presidential is unforgiveable. Campaign trail Obama portrayed himself as a boy from humble, single parent family, beginnings who rose through good old fashioned hard work. As any PR person will tell you, the accuracy of that persona is irrelevant as long as people embrace it and believe it. President Obama quickly abandoned that character in favor of a rather elitist, thin skinned, whiner. Frankly, the plaintive cries of “I deserve to play golf cuz my job is so stressful” doesn’t sit well with Americans or anyone else for that matter.

This wasn’t a job thrust upon him; it is one that he worked very hard to convince the world would be a perfect fit. Now that he finds the “uniform” of world leader chaffing and restrictive, he seems to feel entitled to yank off the tie and run off to play whenever the mood strikes. The result is a world that sees Obama as, at best, petulant, naive, and uncouth and at worst either completely incompetent or dangerously arrogant.