We Win, They LoseThe Wit and Wisdom of Three Guys Named Brent, Mark and Mike
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Over at SA a few weeks ago, I posted a few items (here and here) about Planned Parenthood's endorsement of John Kerry.
Although PP's commercials are supposedly paid for by its "action fund" PAC, they state that "For the first time in history, Planned Parenthood endorsed a candidate for president, John Kerry. This election is that important."
I questioned whether this endorsement violated PP's 501(c)(3) status, asking:
Can you use your action fund to refer back to your 501(c)(3) as endorsing a candidate for office?
I just came across this article, which states:
Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading abortion rights group, set its sights on the White House and endorsed Democrat John Kerry. It's the group's first presidential endorsement.
The group is spending more than $1-million on TV ads targeting single women in key cities in battleground states: Tampa, Seattle, Portland, Ore.; Des Moines, Iowa; Milwaukee and Madison Wisc.; Portsmouth, N.H.; Minneapolis and the Philadelphia suburbs.
The ads point to the U.S. Supreme Court's delicate balance on abortion rights - five justices say the U.S. Constitution guarantees this right while four justices say it doesn't.
The next president could appoint as many as three new justices, so the stakes have never been higher, Planned Parenthood says.
"If the president who makes these appointments is George Bush, the scales could be tipped against a woman's right to choose for a generation," one ad says.
Then there is this, from a link on PP's homepage, titled "Helen Hunt and Planned Parenthood Urge Single Women to Vote: 'Your Vote Is Your Voice'":
"Women on their own have the power to shape our country's future," said PPFA President Gloria Feldt. "It is imperative that every woman in America exercise her civic right and vote on November 2. We were thrilled to work with Helen Hunt and Julie Bergman Sender in communicating this crucial message, and we look forward to seeing its motivating effects."
I ask again -- Can a 501(c)(3) endorse a candidate like this? Am I missing something?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Future of Pro-Aborts
Interesting article over at WorldNetDaily. Jill Stanek writes the following:
I wonder, as the growing number of unwanted old people increases, will Kate Michelman of NARAL Pro-Choice America take on the battle cry, "Every old person a wanted old person"?
Oh, I forgot. Michelman, age 62, has retired.
That leads me to wonder, when Kate is alone at night with her nightmares of chopped up babies, does she now worry about her own future?
I expect when old pro-aborts are as helpless as the babies they put to death so many years before, they will finally understand what all the fuss was about.
Ironically, they will then take comfort in the pro-life movement, which has taken on the fight against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to save even enemies like Michelman and Gloria Steinem, age 70.
And they need not worry that children of pro-lifers will do unto them as they have done unto others. Our kids were raised to bless those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek, and even to wash the feet of their betrayers.
It is the young abortion proponents Michelman and Steinem will have to watch out for.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Following up on Mark's comment below, I wanted to note that the First Presidency's statement comes amid ongoing controversy surrounding what is known as "Amendment 3." This proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution seeks to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions or anything of the like.
Most opponents claim that the amendment, which has two parts, is fundamentally flawed and that it will hurt even heterosexual unmarried couples. Their claims are based on the second part of Amendment 3 which states "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." According to these opponents, which includes the three current candidates for Utah Attorney General, "the amendment is vaguely worded and could have punitive impacts on unmarried couples, negating wills, powers of attorney and other legal contracts." These specific examples of the impact of the amendment are routinely cited in television and radio ads as well.
As an estate planning attorney, I am baffled by these claims. I can draft a will leaving property to whomever I like. (In fact, under modern trust law in some states, including Utah, I can even leave property to a pet.) Similarly, I can designate whomever I choose to serve as my attorney-in-fact under a durable power of attorney (financial or for health care). I can also enter into any legal contracts I choose to with respect to property or services (so long as such contracts do not involve illegal matters such as gambling, etc.). Furthermore, the Amendment only prohibits government recognition of non-marital relationships (marriage being limited to one man and one woman) by the government, not by private employers or citizens. Thus, what opponents are saying is patently false. I guess they are hoping catch voters unawares.
What is even more surprising is the complete lack of examination by the news media of these false claims. There is little doubt this measure will pass, but it is disturbing that so many people seem to be persuaded by the easily verifiable deception of groups like the Don't Amend Alliance.
Bill O'Reilly's Accuser
I've often thought that Bill O'Reilly had some sort of fixation on sex, just from various comments he's made on his radio show, which I listen to frequently. However, that does not mean that he is guilty of what his former employee is accusing him of, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little something to the accusations. Anyway, one thing I definitely disagree with is this statement from his accuser, Ms. Mackris:
"I feel badly for his family. But I do not feel guilty. How is it my fault, what has happened here? I could have stood naked in front of him and there was still no way he should be allowed to get away with what he did."
As I understand it, O'Reilly's behavior amounts to boorish and rude comments. In any event, why should any woman expect to be able to stand naked in front of a man and expect him to not make sexual comments? That's how ridiculous some feminist thought has gotten -- now a woman can fully expect to stand naked in front of a man and he is not supposed to even make a comment. Good grief.
First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, standing strong:
"We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
"As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Can Mormons Make the Difference?
Check this out:
For the first time ever a major political party has decided to reach out to the LDS community as a demographic group, treating it on a par with Catholics, Evangelicals, Asians, Hispanics and other demographic coalitions.
That's pretty cool, although I think it is a bit overstated. I think the major political parties in Illinois were courting the Saints in Nauvoo as a voting block in the 1840's.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Bush on Abortion
Personally, I thought President Bush's response to the Roe v. Wade question in the last debate was crap. He really had a chance to elaborate on not only abortion and what it has done to this nation, but judicial activism in general. Instead, he struck out (in my mind) with a pathetic ten-second response to a two-minute question.
But even worse than Bush's response was the Boston Globe's editorial commenting on his answer. Check out what the liberal deep thinkers had to say:
WHEN BOB Schieffer asked President Bush on Wednesday night whether he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, Bush declared: "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test."
This nonanswer is chilling. It raises the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states decide what's legal.
"Chilling"? A decision that directly results in the destruction of forty million people is manna from heaven, while apparently "letting states decide what's legal" is "chilling." As if states don't "decide what's legal" every day, in millions of situations.
How pathetic that this kind of clap-trap passes for thinking. Who wrote this garbage?
And by the way, they refer to the Center for Reproductive Rights as "a nonprofit organization in New York City." That's all folks, just a simple non-profit organization, nothing to see here, move along.
They somehow neglect to mention that, oh, by the way, this particular non-profit organization (notice no modifier) was caught last year advocating the following:
(1) undoing the notion that parental rights are an adequate justification for imposing additional burdens on minors seeking abortions or other reproductive health care;
(2) staving off efforts to require parental involvement for minors seeking contraception and abortion;
(3) undoing child abuse reporting requirements with respect to non-abusive sexual relations;
(4) ensuring minors' ability to consent to all reproductive health services;
(5) establishing minors' right to comprehensive information about reproductive and sexual health.
Ever notice how conservative groups are characterized as such (or worse) whenever mentioned in the media but a radical group of crazies like this is simply "a nonprofit organization in New York City"?
(cross-posted at Southern Appeal)
Thursday, October 07, 2004
By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them
Stanley Kurtz writes today about the fear that has gripped conservatives and Republicans in certain parts of the country because of the conduct of liberals. His anectdotal examples, coupled with several news stories around the nation (see this picture of protesters who invaded the Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters in Milwaukee), show the true face of the Democrat party and the liberal wing that lead it today. They have no respect for other's rights. They have no decency or honor. It reminds me of what Christ said long ago "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Ah, those ever-optimistic Democrats
Senator Fritz Hollings, in the course of an explanation of why he would vote against a draft bill that he proposed said the following:
"You don't draft young Americans for a mistake, particularly when they can't win. Under these circumstances, I would vote against my own bill."
Good thing he decided not to run for re-election here in South Carolina this year. With sentiments like that, he would have gotten killed. Of course, the only reason he feels free to run his mouth is that he is not running for re-election.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Baseball Crank has a very good analysis of last night's debate. Good stuff.
(Hat tip to Antioch Road)
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Even Constitutional Amendments Are Not Safe
Is there any doubt that a Federal marriage amendment is absolutely necessary? Notwithstanding the overwhelming support secured for a Lousiana consitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a state judge had the audacity to attempt to strike down the measure. It is just astounding that one man thinks he can impose his will against nearly eighty percent (80%) of the voters of the State of Louisiana. Rule by judicial fiat indeed.