Apparently frightened by the current wave of conservatism in opposition to Obama’s policies, news organizations have chosen to frame the conservative movement as “radical.”  After all, when you are unable to respond to the issues, the second best thing is getting out of discussions by saying that your opponents just aren’t worth arguing with.

Newsweek is on the forefront of such wusses and has released a web article entitled “Even Reagan wasn’t a Reagan Republican.” The point, of course, is to show that the previous republican presidents just wouldn’t cut it in today’s conservative Republican party.

I find it hilarious that Newsweek is trying to reprimand Republicans for not being like Nixon. I mean, why would I want to disagree with the guy who said that “we were all Keynesians now?” </sarcasm> Or how about Ford? I think we can all say he was an idiot when appointing Stevens to the court.

And then we come to Reagan (and Bush). Looks like they’re stretching a few points here to make it fit with their story. For instance, could it be that deficit spending was caused by fighting a war? No mention of it. And look at his domestic policies – wilderness protection, nominating O’Connor, etc.

First, all of these are easy to cherrypick. After 2 terms of Reagan’s presidency, you would think that Newsweek wouldn’t have to use any of his actions as governor of CA. After all, if he’s really not that conservative, there should be oodles of anti-conservative stuff.

Secondly, how does Newsweek know that wilderness protection or whatever is frowned upon by Republicans? I would agree with several of the things mentioned, or would at least like to see debate on the issue.

Thirdly, a lot of these things are things that conservatives disliked even then, and given the consequences of those actions (like having O’Connor, Souter, Stevens, etc on the court) Republicans should learn from their mistakes.

All in all, I think it’s quite good that we don’t choose to follow in lock-step with everything that has been done in the past. You keep the good decisions, throw out the bad ones. And all of our presidents, democrats and republicans, have made bad decisions. Republicans just make fewer.

In a recent article on the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, staff writer Sarah Seltzer bemoaned that fact that abortion not a popular punchline.  “The lack of abortion jokes creates this hyped-up atmosphere of tragedy and controversy around something that is quite common and needs to be discussed more,” she said.

The catalyst for this comment is an unreleased episode of Family Guy, in which abortion is the target for the show’s infamously edgy and irreverent jokes.  Seltzer identifies the lack of abortion jokes as “a damning silence” and quotes another blogger who calls it “a textbook example of how systemic sexism works.”

For all her concern about sexism, Seltzer shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards women who have had abortions and a failure to recognize that abortion is simply not funny for the majority of Americans.  (Ironically, when a pro-lifer tries to show a medically accurate and scientific depiction of what occurs during abortion, they’re soundly condemned by self-appointed spokespeople for women for their insensitivity.)

Seltzer continues by complaining of otherwise “edgy, sexually hip shows” that take “the typical TV copout route of a miscarriage or a pregnancy carried to term.”

“TV has created this bizarro world,” she says, “where a choice that most American women would consider strongly after an unintended pregnancy is all but erased.”

Seltzer is right when she points out that abortions occur all too often. After all, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, at current rates more than one-third of women (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.

But why is abortion rarely portrayed on television?  Judging by the content of current TV shows, it’s hardly because of puritan censorship. Instead, most people realize that abortion is not just a medical procedure. It’s the taking of a human life, and that is what makes it off the table for discussion.

But let’s have an open conversation on abortion – not filled with jokes and flippant remarks, as Sarah Seltzer advocates, but a nation-wide discussion of the brutal procedure itself and the pain that it leaves behind. Otherwise, we are indeed contributing to “a damning silence.”

On Tuesday in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey of New York read an article in defense of Margaret Sanger, eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

Lowey began by praising Sanger for “her commitment to improving the health and lives of women” and stated that she was “proud to recognize Margaret Sanger for her tireless efforts on behalf of women and for fighting for those unable to fight for themselves.”

The article, entitled “Margaret Sanger – Setting the Record Straight” is by Dr. Ellen Chesler, a lecturer at Hunter College of the City University of New York. Chesler argues that Sanger’s reputation has been “savaged by opponents who deliberately misrepresent the history of birth control and circulate scurrilous, false accusations about her on the Internet.” Chesler excuses Sanger’s most vile comments as being “lifted out of context and tragically misquoted.”

Unfortunately for Dr. Chesler, this negative view of Sanger is rooted not in the Internet but in Sanger’s own books and actions. Sanger was an outspoken Social Darwinist who condemned charity because it supported a certain population that she termed “human waste.” In her 1922 book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger devoted a full chapter to this viewpoint called “The Cruelty of Charity.” “Organized charity itself,” she wrote, “is a symptom of a malignant social disease… the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

Sanger’s solution to her perceived problem? Mass coercive sterilization and segregation. She stated, “…we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”* By supporting coercive sterilization, Sanger can hardly be called a liberator who wished for women to have “the ability to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately control their own destiny,” as Rep. Lowey asserts.

Dr. Chesler states that Sanger’s language had “no intended racial, ethnic or class content.” However, according to New York Times journalist Edwin Black, Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists, including Lothrop Stoddard and Leon Whitney. Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy was invited to join the board of directors of Sanger’s American Birth Control League, a position he retained for years.

Margaret Sanger herself wished for the League and other organizations such the Eugenics Research Association and American Eugenics Society to unite, seeing that the groups had much in common. Leon Whitney, the executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, reported to colleagues that Sanger “felt very strongly about eugenics and seemed to see the whole problem of birth control as a eugenical problem… Mrs. Sanger took very kindly to the idea [of the merger] and seemed to be as enthusiastic about it was I was.”*

This is the same Leon Whitney who commented on the Nazi gassing of 50,000 to 100,000 of those who were deemed unfit by saying, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”

Dr. Chesler calls Sanger “actually an unusually advanced thinker on race for her day” and cites examples in which Margaret Sanger opened birth control clinics for rural black women in the south. Dr. Chesler seems to naively attribute these actions to a concern for blacks rather than a desire to control the black population, despite the evidence that Sanger’s views leaned toward the latter. In a letter to Clarence Gamble dated 1939, Sanger said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Even after her organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood, Sanger still pushed a eugenics agenda. In fact, in reviewing the goals of International Planned Parenthood, Sanger replied to a colleague, “I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion as what a Planned Parenthood Federation should want or aim to do, but I do not see how we could leave out in its aims some of the eugenic principles that are basically sound in constructing a decent civilization.”*

Thanks to the efforts of those such as Margaret Sanger, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and thousands were barred from marriage or forcibly segregated into “colonies.”

This is the woman whose name appears on the award recently given to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is the woman that Representative Lowey praises and recognizes “for her tireless efforts.”

Let Representative Lowey know the truth about Margaret Sanger by contacting her office at 202-225-6506.

*Quotations from War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black

How do you derive human worth from a universe devoid of God?

Someone please answer this, since it appears to me that without God, human life is greatly devalued. Consider the following:

• If life happened with no purpose in mind, humans are intrinsically no more important than other animals.
• We may value an organism based on how much it can accomplish, which is dependent on how intelligent it is.
• This is the only basis for valuing a human life over the life of another species- the human’s higher intelligence.
• However, how do we value those humans who do not have the same level of intelligence? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, is there any reason to suggest that they are of equal value?
• Furthermore, what of those people with genetic diseases? According to the evolutionary viewpoint, are they preventing humanity from reaching its potential?
• From a purely naturalistic standpoint, what’s to stop someone from being as cruel as nature herself? Why does the survival of the fittest not apply to humans?

As you can see, a purely evolutionary viewpoint devoid of God leads straight into eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion. That is not to say that atheists cannot be good people, but it is to say that their goodness does not come from their atheism – it has some other origin. My guess would be Christian tradition.

People say that the Golden Rule is universal and not Christian in origin. But they miss the point- Christians were the first to have reason to define “your neighbor” to mean everyone, especially those you hate.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

In a great article from the National Review (subscribers can view it here), Jay Nordlinger sets out the facts of the matter: although the general consensus is that US relations have worsened, in many cases they have actually improved or stayed the same. Look at relations with Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, and Berlusconi. And what about the Dutch, the Danes and the Eastern Europeans? The only European government with which relations have worsened is Spain, Nordlinger explains. Furthermore, Nordlinger says that the American image in Africa is quite good, partly because of Bush’s programs on AIDS and malaria. More countries join the list: India (with whom we are at an all time high), Japan, South Korea, China, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. Of course, there are some Latin American countries that do not quite agree with us (Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba), but this is because of their anti-democratic stance. In the Middle East, we have vowed to defend Israel, and still keep strong relations with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Our traditional allies are still with us- Australia, Canada, Turkey, and Israel.

Yes, the global elites hate Bush. But Nordlinger points out that our relations are generally in the same shape, if not better. In the article, Jay Nordlinger includes what I think to be an incredibly strong response from Bush:

“I’d rather be respected than liked… You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them… Popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation — but principles are enduring.”

One of my classes at Berkeley this past semester was a Political Science Colloquium where each week we heard from a different speaker. One week we had Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party. This was before the election, so party lines and affiliations were clearly drawn. Torres spent most of his speech telling the hundreds of students in the class that under Obama, their families would receive more tax credits. The only variation was exactly how much a family would get based on how many students were in school and their particular situation.

I couldn’t help but think of how similar it was to a candidate for student body president handing out candy to potential voters, so I asked Torres in the Q&A session if he didn’t think there were more important criteria to base one’s presidential choice on than who will give you the most stuff. He seemed taken aback, but quickly recovered and began to say that Obama would be better on the War, and so forth. However, why wasn’t this the first thing he told us? Because he assumed that Berkeley students are primarily concerned with themselves and their finances. And he is for the most part, right.

In this past election more than any other, we saw promises, not policy from our presidential candidates, especially Barrack Obama. Healthcare? Yep, you got it. Tax credits? No worries. People weren’t looking for what would benefit their country the most, but who would give the most to them, and the politicians know this. “Who cares if we go into greater debt as long as I get my money?” seemed to be the common theme, although even Obama admitted there was no viable way to fund all of his promises.

How do we compete with free handouts in a democracy? At some point, our country will have to realize we cannot provide everything or we will collapse. But if everyone is fighting for their share, how do convince people to cut back? The answer is visible expenditures. The money that goes out of paychecks every week without us hardly knowing should be more visible. Like the signs for public projects that state something like, “This park was paid for by measure Z”, we should state exactly what the opportunity cost was- what is it exactly that we are missing out on to pay for the park. For example, imagine if instead the park sign stated that a .5% property tax paid for the park, meaning that the average household paid n dollars. If the park or other public good is worth more to us than what we could have obtained had we kept the money, that public good was a wise expenditure. If not, it’s wasteful spending that should be cut out.

It would be nice if people were more unselfishly motivated, but realistically, there’s no way governmental policy can change that. What the government can change is the visibility of its spending and what people are missing out on by handing over their money.

In the much awaited vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin started out the evening in a manner that seemed to be heavily scripted, and not always relevant to the question. Understandably so. I’d stick to what I had memorized if the eyes of the nation were upon me, waiting for me to slip up. However, Palin was able to regain her confidence and fire back at Biden during the second half, especially since Biden was not without his own vulnerabilities. In an apparent attempt to join in the “folksy” identity of Governor Palin, Senator Biden stated that “All you got to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington and go to Katy’s (sp) Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me, where I spend a lot of time…”

Worse for Biden, though, was his declaration that

“…our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that a surge — the surge principles used in Iraq will not — let me say this again now. Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Not Joe Biden; our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops, we need government building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.”

To which Palin responded:

“Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country — and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us, for one, and even the geographic differences are huge. But the counterinsurgency principles also could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn’t say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy, going into Afghanistan — clearing, holding, rebuilding the civil society and the infrastructure — can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this, have not said anything different but that.”

Admittedly, Palin mistakenly called him General McClellan rather than McKiernan. However, she was “darn right”. The facts show that General McKiernan supports the principles of the surge in Iraq, although he doesn’t wish to use the word ‘surge.’ The Global Edition of the New York Times didn’t shy from using the word in the title of their article about McKiernan- “U.S. general urges troop surge in Afghanistan.” Even NPR.org admits, “So while he doesn’t believe in using the word surge because it resonates of Iraq, he does believe in rushing more troops to Afghanistan — a surge by another name.”

Also interesting was the apparent agreement of Governor Palin and Senator Biden on their policies concerning gay marriage. Both Palin and Biden stated that while they would certainly support things such as hospital visitation rights and joint ownership of property for gay couples, they are against gay marriage. I was surprised to hear this. But then, again, I am accustomed to Berkeley. Perhaps Biden is trying to reach the rest of America? Who knows.

The real question to be pondered, however, is what DOES Biden do in Home Depot when he’s spending so much time there?

I’d like to begin with some words from our President:

“The Government of Iraq crossed a new threshold of noncompliance… when it repeatedly blocked attempts by U.N. weapons inspectors to enter certain Iraqi government facilities. The investigators from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM)… believe Iraq may be hiding information on its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.”

This statement was not made by President Bush, but by President Clinton in a 1996 letter to Congress. This shows that Bush did not create Iraq as a threat. It has been one for some time. Furthermore, this quote negates the idea that further negotiations would have helped. People complain that we should have “given peace a chance” but peace was given a chance for 12 years. Since 1991, the UN had been making resolutions trying to force Saddam Hussein to destroy weapons of mass destruction. In July of 1991, UN weapons inspectors report that Iraq has concealed much of its nuclear and chemical weapons programs. In 1997, The UN disarmament commission concluded that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles. In 1998, Iraq suspended all cooperation with the UN inspectors and continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted. Iraq finally agreed to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors but by a month later in December of 1998, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise.

So as you can see, the negotiations were not exactly making much progress. Our choices were to continue with this useless rhetoric against Iraq, or actually do something about the regime. Personally, I would choose to do something about the danger of Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s what the War in Iraq was supposed to do. I know you all are probably saying, “But there were no WMDs, Bush was lying!” However, a lie is a purposeful falsehood. If you are saying what you believe to be true, and it turns out to be wrong, that is not a lie. So at the very most, President Bush could be mistaken, but could not have been lying.

It’s certainly debatable whether there were WMD or not. Although we have not found viable WMD’s, we have found evidence that Iraq was not following disarmament policies. For instance, 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent were found in Iraq since 2003. So although these may not be completely effective, they prove that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he had destroyed all weapons. Moreover, it shows how easily the inspections could miss weapons, if they missed 500 of them. Remember, weapons of mass destruction don’t have to be of mass proportion and Iraq is about the size of California, so it is not difficult to hide weapons. Thus, to say that there are no WMD in Iraq at all is an incredible assumption.

Furthermore, even if it could be proven that there are no weapons of mass destruction at all in Iraq now, that does not prove they never existed. Iraq had a long time period to get rid of its weapon systems before the United States entered. In fact, one of Hussein’s former military leaders, General Georges Sada, states that he knows for sure that Hussein transferred his WMD to Syria. Furthermore, if Iraq never had WMD, then why did Saddam’s regime refuse to go along with the UN resolutions?

Another issue to be addressed is the connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist organizations. People have greatly misinterpreted the fact that Hussein had no OFFICIAL ties with Al Qaeda to mean that he had no relations with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. However, this could not be more untrue. Saddam had supported terrorism to such an extent that he had terrorism training camps. The former regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion. Furthermore, there have been non-official relations between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told the Weekly Standard, “the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.”

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the situation in Iraq now. People have called Iraq a quagmire and some say that it will never improve. This is untrue. According to the report to Congress by General Petraeus, civilian deaths have also declined considerably, by over 45% Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December. In Baghdad, the decline was by 70%. The number of ethno-sectarian deaths has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%, In Baghdad, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by some 80% since December.

Obviously, progress is being made. I find it ironic that the very people who can wait for 12 years for Iraq to submit to disarmament cannot wait 5 years to create a new government. If we pull out now, according to the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report, it would produce a number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces; Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground; and a marked increase in violence.

In my history class this new school year, we’ve just discussed the theories of Machiavelli. During the Renaissance, he wrote a book of advice about public policy, entitled The Prince. In The Prince, Machiavelli states, “one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.” In other words, it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved.

This may seem to be true. After all, because humans are imperfect, they will sometimes be looking out for their self-interests instead of the interests of the ruler. Therefore, a good system (for the ruler) would make sure that the ruler and the constituents have common interests. Machiavelli understands this to mean that the ruler should threaten his subjects to make sure they have his interests in mind.

But what if Machiavelli is forgetting something? What would stop a constituent who obeys based on fear from changing his allegiance when a more frightening ruler appears?

However, a subject of the ruler would be reluctant to change his allegiance if it were based on love, because love is not transferred so easily. A person’s pride in their homeland and leader is more powerful than fear.

This is why a democracy works so well. Support for the government is not based on fear, but on love, especially since the government is made up of the constituents themselves. Thus, the citizens and “rulers” have common interests, without requiring fear.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. In fact, there is much more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Alexander the Great, and Alexander the Great is an accepted historical figure (read more here).

Some people say that Jesus was only a teacher, nothing more. Yet, does this make logical sense? (For the purposes of this post, I will call it the “teacher assumption”.)

Let’s go through the scenario. Jesus’ death is estimated be around 26-37 AD. There were eyewitnesses that stated that they had seen Jesus after his death and alleged resurrection. Of course, eyewitnesses can either be mistaken, lying, or right.

Let’s say that the eyewitnesses were simply mistaken. This is very improbable, considering that hundreds of people saw Jesus, and he appeared many times. For example, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he states, “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.” No mass collaboration or hallucination is possible, because people saw him in different locations at different times. Furthermore, when the accounts of these eyewitnesses were given, they were still alive, and able to contradict anything that was not the truth.

But let’s say that the eyewitnesses were lying. The main “eyewitnesses” were the apostles themselves. According to other historical documents of the time, most of the apostles were martyred. For example, Peter was crucified under Nero (AD 64). Now, these people claimed to have seen Christ with their very own eyes. And they died for it. Why would someone be willing to die for something they knew was a lie? They got nothing out of lying except pain.

A common reaction to this would be to say that people die for their beliefs all the time: those suicide bombers and such. However, these people today die for what they believe is true. In order for the teacher assumption to be correct, the apostles must have died for what they know was a lie, and gained nothing.

Logically, this assumption does not make any sense. Therefore, it is ironic that many people claim to be logical and rational, and yet, still reject Christianity. But when we do look at Jesus’ death and resurrection logically, we can see that if the eyewitnesses were not mistaken or lying, they must have been right.

I managed to come across the news that the Sacramento City Council is hosting a screening of “An Inconvenient Truth”. Here’s the flyer that they are passing out:

As can be seen, not only are they hosting this screening, but it is during their evening session. Of course, “an inconvenient truth” is a greater priority to the council than Sacramento gang violence, crime, flooding, and other growing problems.

But even if global warming was the most pressing problem to Sacramento, why the use of “An Inconvenient Truth”? Surely, a more informative and professional way of dealing with this topic would be to have a hearing on the subject, with various experts sharing their opinion on how it pertains to Sacramento itself. Yet, instead, Sacramento’s mayor and city council have decided to show what results to be a documentary about Al Gore, with a few “facts” thrown in for good measure.

The reason I say this is because when I viewed “An Inconvenient Truth”, I noticed that, for some reason, global warming is very connected with Al Gore’s life story. We learn about Al’s childhood, his speaking tour, and how he became such a global warming expert in the first place.

In fact, Al is so committed to the environment and reducing human excess that he is the proud owner of a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, along with two other houses.

And, one of those “scientific facts” that I mentioned was that sea levels will possibly rise by approximately 20 feet! flooding coastal areas! and producing 100 million refugees!!! Nope, no scare tactics here, only scientific facts. Never mind that the UN’s IPCC fourth report on global warming estimates the maximum sea level rise at 23 inches; Al Gore knows what he’s doing!

But seriously, showing this movie as an activity of the City Council is a waste of time and resources. Surely, the council can either objectively and scientifically look at global warming, or find a more pressing topic altogether.

One argument that I hear time and time again against pro-lifers is “Why don’t they quit this and actually do something to help women? Hypocrites.” These people seem to think that they are making an original, thoughtful point. However, their suggestions have already been in action for many years. In fact, pregnancy centers now outnumber abortion clinics (Times.)

So why have so many people not heard of these centers? One reason may be that the general public finds it difficult to justify the idea of a caring pro-lifer with the idea of pro-lifers as “anti-choice fanatics” which they receive from the news. (Interestingly, news of pro-abortion violence is rarely heard, although there have been a greater number of crimes. See here for more information).

However, for the first time, a major news source has decided to cover this “new” side of the pro-life movement. Time magazine wrote a cover article entitled “The Grassroots Abortion War”. The article explains the services that crisis pregnancy centers offer and gives an in-depth interview with Deborah Wood, the CEO of a North Carolina center, portraying her as compassionate and competent. While the article surprisingly describes the movement as “kind, calm, nonjudgmental”, it also gives voice to critics who state that the centers are not giving correct information. These claims should have been investigated by the Time, not simply quoted and unsubstantiated. Despite these shortcomings, this article is certainly a revolutionary look for the American public.

Earlier this evening, President Bush gave an excellent speech outlining his plan for Iraq and basically dispelling the frail Democratic arguments. Here is the text of the speech. Please read it all, especially if you disagree with President Bush.

President’s Address to the Nation
The Library

	President’s Remarks view

9:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we’ll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States, and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American — and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can, and we will, prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

END 9:21 P.M. EST

“Our President has lied to us.” “He has falsely led us into this war.” “He has abused our civil rights.” “He has exceeded his Presidential powers.” “Americans are dying because of this war that should have never been fought.”

You might have thought that I was talking about our current president, but actually, I was referring to criticism about the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Now considered one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln was bombarded with criticism from the press, from the Democrats, and even from within his own Republican party. Because the presidential criticism is very similar today, it is valuable to examine how the public opinion of President Lincoln has changed.

One of the main complaints against Lincoln was that he had dishonestly led the United States into the Civil War. In fact, a Democratic rhymester wrote:

“Honest old Abe, when the war first began,
Denied abolition was part of his plan;
Honest old Abe has since made a decree,
The war must go on till the slaves are all free.
As both can’t be honest, will some one tell how,
If honest Abe then, he is honest Abe now?”

At first, Lincoln rebuffed all claims that the war was against slavery and maintained that the Civil War was solely to save the Union. He stated in 1862, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.” Then, after his Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all Confederate slaves free, many slavery-supporting Northerners began rejecting Lincoln.

Similarly, Bush has been the object of criticism saying that he lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been re-elected by Democratic constituents since 1962, called the decision to invade “dishonest” and stated, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.” Soon to be Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid stated, “We all know the vice president’s office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it.” (Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for November 3) Some today go as far as to say that Bush is seeking revenge for his father, George H. W. Bush. Others say that it is a war for oil or a means to get the company Haliburton rich. Also, like Lincoln, Bush has been accused of changing his reasons for invading Iraq. Critics state that the initial reason was Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now, it is liberating the Iraqi people. They fail to see that by overthrowing Saddam, the Iraqi people are freed, just like Lincoln’s critics failed to see that in order to reunite the Union, slavery must be abolished.

The second complaint against Lincoln was that he was overstepping his role as President and violating our civil rights. During the Civil War, Lincoln often took matters into his own hands, such as when he proclaimed a blockade against the South, arbitrarily increased the size of the Federal army, and advanced $2 million to three private citizens for military purposes, all without the approval of Congress. Moreover, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, defying a ruling by the chief justice of the Supreme Court (Merryman, ex parte). The criticism was so strong that “His enemies termed him a dictator and a tyrant.” (Encyclopedia Americana).

Likewise, critics of Bush claim that he has violated our rights through the warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects. For example, political magazine CounterPunch refers to our nation as being in “the national security state that kills people abroad while destroying our rights here at home.”

Generally, Lincoln was criticized greatly during the Civil War. “He was beset not only by the difficulties of the war, but by opposition from men on his own side. His cabinet was rent by internal jealousies and hatred; radical abolitionists condemned him as too mild; conservatives were gloomy over the prospects of success in the war.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia) “Throughout the war Lincoln was the subject of frequent, and often vitriolic, attacks, both from the Democrats who thought he was proceeding too drastically against slavery and from the Radicals in his own party—men like Charles Sumner, Benjamin F. Wade, and Zachariah Chandler—who considered him slow and ineffective. Partisan newspapers abused the President as “a slangwhanging stump speaker,” a “half-witted usurper,” a “mole-eyed” monster with “soul … of leather,”"the present turtle at the head of the government.” Men of his own party openly charged that he was “unfit,” a “political coward,” a “dictator,”"timid and ignorant,”"shattered, dazed, utterly foolish.”” (Encyclopedia Americana). In fact, even Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was branded as “ludicrous” by the London Times and by Democratic editors as “dishwatery” and “silly”. The now famous speech attracted little attention at the time.

Similarly, Bush has been labeled as stupid and tyrannical, and his historical speeches, such as the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, have to my knowledge only been ridiculed by the mainstream press.

However, the tide began to turn in Lincoln’s favor in his 1864 campaign for reelection. In order to take power away from the anti-war Democrats, the Republican Party banded with the Democrats that supported the war to form the Union Party. In fact, Lincoln’s own running mate was a War Democrat. Also, soon before the election, the North had a series of victories. With that and the votes of the Union soldiers, Lincoln won the presidency for a second time. Almost a year later, Lee surrendered and the Civil War was over, to the great relief of the people. Lincoln died at the very pinnacle of his fame, only five days after the end of the bloodiest war in American history.

Thus, the criticism against Lincoln is very similar to that against President George W. Bush. The allegations against him, like Lincoln, include lying about the purpose of the war, being incompetent, overstepping presidential powers, and violating civil rights. However, somehow Lincoln was able to regain his popularity and more. The reason, of course, was because he managed to win the Civil War. Likewise, I believe that Bush, too, will be seen as one of our greatest presidents if he can only establish a peaceful Iraq in the Middle East. This is not to compare Iraq to the Civil War, but only to compare the similar criticism. Therefore, Republicans and the rest of Americans should not give up on Bush. Now, some might try to argue that Bush will never achieve greatness like Lincoln because he is too stupid, too wrong, too whatever. Nevertheless, they forget that these were exactly what were said about Lincoln too. Thus, if history does indeed repeat itself, then the critics will be wrong once more.

Please read the following letter, written by a local woman, and then take a look at my comments on Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative here in California.

Hello, I am a Sacramento area parishioner, both myself and my children attended local Catholic schools. I would like to share my story to help encourage more people to speak out about abortion, especially in the church, our schools, community, and our family.

At 14 years old, in the 8th grade I met and started dating a 19 year old guy who was already out of school. I lost my virginity to him and by summer I had become pregnant. My boyfriend pressured me hard into getting an abortion without telling my parents for fear he would get in trouble or go to jail etc. When the day came he dropped me off in front of the Planned Parenthood in downtown Sacramento and went on his way to a concert with a friend. I aborted our baby alone and afraid. He left me there not knowing how I was going to get home. I left the clinic bleeding and crying my eyes out. I walked alone downtown about 12 blocks to the old Greyhound depot to catch the bus that took me back to our side of town. I had never been downtown on foot and alone and I remember how scared I was of everyone. I could not go home though because I was crying too hard and bleeding too much that my parents would have known something was terribly wrong. I rode the bus and walked around all day, alone and afraid until I could compose myself enough to go home. Once the abortion was done my boyfriend broke off what was left of our relationship. I was left alone to suffer depression, had thoughts of suicide, experienced eating disorders, had parenting insecurity, no self confidence, no self forgiveness and all the negative effects nobody warned me about or offered counsel for throughout most of my life.

When I was about 32 years old, I started listening to Catholic Radio and for the first time heard advertisement for post-abortive counseling and healing. I finally got help 18 years later.

I am telling you this because I think it would be better if the truth about abortion was talked about more openly. The evils of abortion should be learned about to counteract the lies told to young girls about how abortion is just a simple procedure to eliminate the ‘cluster of cells’, make all your troubles go away, and your life go back to normal in no time. To this day, I never hear the real truth about abortion being discussed in church or Catholic school. The scared fathers or molesters only want the ‘problem’ to go away. Planned Parenthood is not warning these girls, in fact they shelter them from the truth, even lie about it, and leave them to suffer the consequences alone. Nobody ever told me how bad it would be to live with the truth of what you have done. It was never talked about by anyone but the people who wanted me to abort the most.

I think that young girls would be more likely to seek help through their parish if they at least saw and heard the truth from there. If the church speaks about abortion it might cross a girl’s mind that she may be able to turn and find help there. It never crossed my mind. I think it could prevent some girls from having abortions and open the door for post abortive women to get help or reconciliation. After all, if I had not started listening to Catholic radio, I would have never known or even thought of turning to the church even though I had confessed it several times. When done in a compassionate way, openly talking about abortion helps women who have had one to know that they are not alone or crazy for the suffering they feel.

Had there been a law about parental notification I may not have gone through with it. Even if I had, someone would have known to get me help and counseling. When I helped collect signatures for Prop 85 at the church I was shocked at how many people not only refused to sign, but were hostile and rude about it. I wanted to share my story with them and say; ‘Look, I went through this at 14 years old and my parents had no idea what was wrong with me or how to help. All they knew and chalked it up to was that my boyfriend broke up with me. I remember hearing them say, “She’ll get over it, she’s just heartbroken.” I didn’t. And there are worse stories then mine. Is that what we want for our daughters? ’

In the end, my baby was killed at my request. I knew that from the moment it happened. No one ever had to say that to me, or even knew what I had done. The guilt I felt was so strong nobody could have made me feel worse then my own thoughts did. The truth could have lead me to help sooner. Sometimes I feel that abortion does not get talked about for fear of offending or making people feel bad. I am just wanting to express that people who have had abortions already feel bad and do not know where to turn for healing and understanding if it is not talked about openly and honestly in parishes. Please do what you can to help bring the whole truth about abortion to your family, community, church, and everyone you know. The truth could really help someone like me.

Thank you for your help and support.

Sacramento-area post-abortive woman

As a 14-year-old girl, this woman had parents who cared for her. Under Proposition 85, the abortion facility would have been required to notify her parents before the abortion. As she admits, she may have still gotten an abortion even if her parents had known. However, her parents would have been able to give her the support she desperately needed. Without Prop 85, we are crippling the guidance and help that parents can give their daughters.

Opponents of Prop 85 are not above hiding the truth in order to win. On the No on 85 website’s “The Facts” page, it states, “Prop 85 forces even teens from violent or abusive homes to involve their parents.” This is simply a lie. Proposition 85 allows a young woman to obtain a judicial bypass if she does not want to involve her parents. Furthermore, Prop 85 would stop these abusive parents by shedding light on the situation. This shows that opponents don’t care about what is best for the teen involved, but only about the abortion itself.
It is entirely illogical to make the argument that parents should not be told because some may get abusive. For instance, some parents may become abusive if their child gets bad grades. Does this mean that parents should not be told about their student’s progress in school? No, of course not. Parents should be told so that they can help their child, and any parents who are abusive should be stopped. The same is true in the case of abortions concerning minors.

Opponents of Prop 85 also state, “While the proposed law would include a bypass provision for teens to seek help from a judge, a girl afraid to tell her parents isn’t going to march up to a judge in a strange courthouse to talk about her pregnancy.” If you know Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics, then you know they will do just about anything to keep their customers. Undoubtedly, Planned Parenthood employees will “help” the young women obtain the judicial bypass, just as they already do.

Please read the above letter and the text of Prop 85 for yourself, and do what is best for my classmates. Vote Yes on Proposition 85.

*Update- The Sacramento Bee calls the No on Prop 85 ad “incorrect”.

One week ago, the Pope came under scrutiny for a speech about God and reason (the full text can be found here). He begins the body of the speech by describing a dialogue during the late 14th century between “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.” The excerpt in contention was this:

“[The emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

But the most unreasonable thing was the reaction to the Pope’s speech. Many Muslims were apparently offended for being linked with violence by an emperor from the 14th century. That is understandable; I wouldn’t like it either. But I don’t firebomb churches while insisting I am non-violent.

The point that Islam is linked with violence, whether or not the Pope intended to mean that, has been proven time and time again by the very people who most vehemently contest it.

I’ve just made my own Cafepress shop at http://www.cafepress.com/speakoutstore. I’m featuring two messages on many different shirts, aprons, and even mousepads. The messages look like this:

One of the t-shirts looks like this:

So please, go check it out. Also, any suggestions about the messages would be appreciated. Are they easily understood? Is there a way they can be improved?

Earlier this year, a DNA study suggested that human and chimp ancestors may have interbred to create hybrids. In the above article, biologist Eric Lander said that “The genome analysis revealed big surprises, with major implications for human evolution.”

This lead me to ponder why we are not hearing of more DNA studies of species assumed to be closely related. It would seem to me that studying the DNA would be superior to saying that some aquatic animal’s fin looks like a mammalian leg if you squint really hard.

All right, that’s an exaggeration, but still, isn’t it true that studying the DNA would give us more definitive answers than categorizing according to more subjective factors, such as body structure? After all, although evolution (through natural selection) acts mostly on the phenotype, it is the DNA that records the changes, however they occurred. Thus, evolution is more or less the process of altering the DNA code. To use an analogy, using the body structure to map evolution is like examining food to find the ingredients instead of simply looking at the recipe card. Yes, you can probably find out a bit by examining it, but you can know for sure by reading the information directly.

So if we do compare DNA as a method of mapping evolution, what would we come up with? Let’s look at a factor, say, chromosome number. How has the chromosome number changed over the course of evolution? How can a lobster have more than 100 pairs of chromosomes, a fruitfly have 4 pairs, and humans have 23?

It is looking at the DNA, in my opinion, that will make or break evolution. We need to get past the other arguments and get to the source, the DNA.

With all the media attention on this subject lately, I thought I would comment on a few things that have come to mind.

First, the bill that Bush vetoed on would have expanded federal funding embryonic stem cell research. I’m sure to many people, it sounds like the issue was whether or not to allow embryonic stem cell research. However, that would be wrong.

Secondly, several news organizations have categorized the debate as “Science against Religion”. This statement is false. Believing that the unborn should be protected is no more religious than believing that two-year-olds should be protected. The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics has outlined the scientific argument against embryonic stem cell research here. [PDF]

Thirdly, let’s review the cures that have been discovered using embryonic stem cell research. None, and this despite the $3 billion California is spending on researching embryonic stem cells. Some people may say that this is because it’s “too soon” to expect cures. Yet, “adult stem cells and cord blood cells are already being used to safely and effectively treat more than 60 conditions”.

Welcome to the new site of Stand Up and Speak Out. My former site, www.standupandspeakout.blogspot.com, will remain as is for a few days. However, after that, I will then close the comments and direct visitors to this site.

Feedback is greatly appreciated!