[Hoot Gibson]

Very well said, and should the indoctrination you mention remain unchallenged, the days of democracy are numbered in any event. I did my best to prep my kids coming up through the system and still had some trouble getting one of them past the secular humanistic propaganda. It takes some effort to match the daily drumbeat of the liberal message.

Today's students do not receive an adequate education in American and world history or American civics. Great American historical figures have been bumped from the history books for being too white, too heterosexual, and too male, too make room for more homosexuals, entertainers, athletes, and other celebrities that made much smaller contributions to the greatness of this country.

Liberals hate the fact that for most of American history, white, straight, Christian males were the movers and shakers that made this country an economic and military giant. How many young Americans know that Sam Adams' claim to fame was not founding a microbrewery?

The fact that the US and most other civilized countries discriminated against minorities and women, which denied them opportunities to make as many positive contributions to a wide range of fields including science, industry, military service, and government, is no excuse for writing people like Patrick Henry out of our history books to make room for less historically significant figures. American history has fallen victim to affirmative action.

There is nothing wrong with explaining to students why women and minorities did not play as many historically significant roles in American history as WASPs, but it is no excuse to rewrite history books and smear people like Thomas Jefferson.

[WideRight05]

Today's students do not receive an adequate education in American and world history or American civics. Great American historical figures have been bumped from the history books for being too white, too heterosexual, and too male, too make room for more homosexuals, entertainers, athletes, and other celebrities that made much smaller contributions to the greatness of this country.

Liberals hate the fact that for most of American history, white, straight, Christian males were the movers and shakers that made this country an economic and military giant. How many young Americans know that Sam Adams' claim to fame was not founding a microbrewery?

The fact that the US and most other civilized countries discriminated against minorities and women, which denied them opportunities to make as many positive contributions to a wide range of fields including science, industry, military service, and government, is no excuse for writing people like Patrick Henry out of our history books to make room for less historically significant figures. American history has fallen victim to affirmative action.

There is nothing wrong with explaining to students why women and minorities did not play as many historically significant roles in American history as WASPs, but it is no excuse to rewrite history books and smear people like Thomas Jefferson.

Liberals want to cover up anything that happened which contradicts their opinion. Having recently had college history classes, one of the examples I will use is Ronald Reagan. They will "liberalize" Ronald Reagan and try to convince you to believe that one of our greatest presidents in history was a liberal. Hoot, I'm sure you also remember a few years ago when the N.O.W. wanted to change "Founding Fathers" to "Founding Framers" because the influence to men was "offensive."

Some of the things I read in the history books are quite interesting. In one history class I had, the book had a full chapter devoted to WWII but failed to mention any of the terrible acts committed by adolf hitler - all while mentioning what a "great, outspoken" leader he was. I remember seeing that and reading the chapter 2 - 3 times to make sure that everything was correct.

Liberals can't stand the fact that history shows that our country was founded on strong Christian beliefs and not on big government and gay rights. But, no big deal to them, if they don't agree with history then they will just change it. Our education system has sadly become a liberal stomping ground.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

In light of the Democrat's unwavering support of abortion and homosexual marriage, I would be interested in knowing how any practicing Christian can vote for Kardashian.

[Bob Seger]

In light of the Democrat's unwavering support of abortion and homosexual marriage, I would be interested in knowing how any practicing Christian can vote for Kardashian.

HRV, it is not my intention to ridicule the Democratic Party of yester year, because IMO, today's democratic party bears absolutely no resemblance to that party. My question is, I wonder how is it possible to be a Christian, and then vote for any modern democratic party candidate and support the views of what this "new party of democrats" has evolved into? It really makes me wonder.......... I am very sure that most of the old timer democrats really do not understand that there has been a transformation of party beliefs, and will continue to vote along party lines because of things like family tradition and the false notion of it still being the "working man's party". Of course this new party of socialists will do every thing in their power to try to convince the long timers that they still represent those values that they have held dear and sacred for all these years.

[Hoot Gibson]

In light of the Democrat's unwavering support of abortion and homosexual marriage, I would be interested in knowing how any practicing Christian can vote for Kardashian.

There are many atheists and agnostics who go to church to fit into their communities or lack the courage to admit their true feelings on religion. Others who attend church or temple regularly feel free to select only church teachings that do not inconvenience themselves. The phrase "cafeteria Catholic" is often applied to Catholics who espouse pro-abortion and other positions that are contrary to the Catholic Church's doctrine, but every religion has its own cafeteria members.

There is no way that a practicing Catholic, or any other practicing Christian, who fully accepts the teaching of Christ could possibly vote for a presidential candidate who endorsed infanticide and actively tried to have the practice of allowing victims of botched abortions to die in hospital linen closets while being denied any medical treatment to save their lives or ease their pain. It amazes me how many Obama supporters still do not know that the man whom they support for president was guilty of this crime against humanity and it makes me sick to think about such ignorance.

When society engages in the kind of rationalization that it takes to support a politician like Obama, the door to all sorts of evil behavior is thrown wide open. Eventually supporters of tyrants become its victims. They may delay their ultimate fate but they cannot avoid it through willful ignorance or pretending that tyranny is somebody else's problem.

[TheRealVille]

There are many atheists and agnostics who go to church to fit into their communities or lack the courage to admit their true feelings on religion. Others who attend church or temple regularly feel free to select only church teachings that do not inconvenience themselves. The phrase "cafeteria Catholic" is often applied to Catholics who espouse pro-abortion and other positions that are contrary to the Catholic Church's doctrine, but every religion has its own cafeteria members.

There is no way that a practicing Catholic, or any other practicing Christian, who fully accepts the teaching of Christ could possibly vote for a presidential candidate who endorsed infanticide and actively tried to have the practice of allowing victims of botched abortions to die in hospital linen closets while being denied any medical treatment to save their lives or ease their pain. It amazes me how many Obama supporters still do not know that the man whom they support for president was guilty of this crime against humanity and it makes me sick to think about such ignorance.

When society engages in the kind of rationalization that it takes to support a politician like Obama, the door to all sorts of evil behavior is thrown wide open. Eventually supporters of tyrants become its victims. They may delay their ultimate fate but they cannot avoid it through willful ignorance or pretending that tyranny is somebody else's problem.

Did you ever study the numbers of abortions before 1973, and now? And the percentage of deaths to the mothers in "back room abortion clinics", then and now, in safe settings. I have. Do a little research. To the ones too lazy to study the stats, the abortions are basically the same, taking into account the population rise, all except for the death to the mothers rate. I did a study on it a long time ago, and the abortion numbers before '73, and after aren't that far apart.

[MustangSally]

^ I've always wondered why more isn't made of the minority fact of abortions
Abortions and ethnicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in..._ethnicity

Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant. In other words, these abortion rates reflect the rate at which U.S. women of reproductive age have an abortion each year.[41] While White women obtain 60% of all abortions, African American women are three times more likely to have an abortion. [42]

In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.[43]

[Hoot Gibson]

Did you ever study the numbers of abortions before 1973, and now? And the percentage of deaths to the mothers in "back room abortion clinics", then and now, in safe settings. I have. Do a little research. To the ones too lazy to study the stats, the abortions are basically the same, taking into account the population rise, all except for the death to the mothers rate. I did a study on it a long time ago, and the abortion numbers before '73, and after aren't that far apart.

There is a big difference in supporting abortion and advocating that hospitals should have the right to withhold medical treatment to babies who survived abortion attempts and were born alive. Have you studied that fact or do you care that Obama championed this position while he was an Illinois State Senator? There are survivors of abortions walking around today who would be dead if the policy that Obama advocated had been in place when they were born.

[Hoot Gibson]

^ I've always wondered why more isn't made of the minority fact of abortions
Abortions and ethnicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in..._ethnicity

Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant. In other words, these abortion rates reflect the rate at which U.S. women of reproductive age have an abortion each year.[41] While White women obtain 60% of all abortions, African American women are three times more likely to have an abortion. [42]

In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.[43]

I agree. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a racist who was motivated by the "yellow" and "black" menaces who threatened the gene pool, in her opinion. Sanger would be proud of the success that Planned Parenthood has had in limiting the number of black births in this country. Blacks account for 17 percent of all live births in this country, but 36 percent of all abortions, and Planned Parenthood is by far the largest operator of abortion mills in this country.

[TheRealThing]

HRV, it is not my intention to ridicule the Democratic Party of yester year, because IMO, today's democratic party bears absolutely no resemblance to that party. My question is, I wonder how is it possible to be a Christian, and then vote for any modern democratic party candidate and support the views of what this "new party of democrats" has evolved into? It really makes me wonder.......... I am very sure that most of the old timer democrats really do not understand that there has been a transformation of party beliefs, and will continue to vote along party lines because of things like family tradition and the false notion of it still being the "working man's party". Of course this new party of socialists will do every thing in their power to try to convince the long timers that they still represent those values that they have held dear and sacred for all these years.

Around 17-18 years ago I talked to an old country Baptist Pastor, of some 60 years. At the time he was just over 80 years old. As we discussed the democrats unfortunate decision to align themselves with the abortion rights movement, he defended the democrats as if they were somehow synonomous with christianity or something. As everyone should know, the Lord's stand against abortion, gay rights, and other social stigma, will never 'evolve'. In my view, there is no excuse for a christian to vote for a candidate that, on the one hand says he is pro labor (which folks believe to be good for them) while on the other, says he is pro choice. In short, I believe that christians who vote democratic for what they believe to be the sake of their job picture, while winking at the fact that same candidate will support and even strengthen the nation's resolve to murder the unnborn, are kidding themselves if they think the Lord is okay with that.

I don't know, is it possible what we're talking about is really past the old timers ability to grasp? I tend to think they just cannot concieve of a generation that is actually so brazen, they would act with contempt to circumvent the natural laws of God. Here is the list of attributes which will characterize most men at the end of time;

2 Timothy 3:1-4 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

The democats of yester year didn't have many of the above listed character flaws. Today's democrat does, and hence, is capable of generating ads showing Paul Ryan shoving grandma off a cliff and suggesting Mitt Romney is responsible for the cancer death of a laid off steel worker's wife.
But, to me, and as you mentioned, the really troubling thing about all this is why good folks continue to support these rascals. If they weren't getting the votes, they wouldn't be in DC redefining America.

[TheRealVille]

There is a big difference in supporting abortion and advocating that hospitals should have the right to withhold medical treatment to babies who survived abortion attempts and were born alive. Have you studied that fact or do you care that Obama championed this position while he was an Illinois State Senator? There are survivors of abortions walking around today who would be dead if the policy that Obama advocated had been in place when they were born.

Show us the legislation he supported.

[TheRealVille]

^ I've always wondered why more isn't made of the minority fact of abortions
Abortions and ethnicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in..._ethnicity

Abortion rates are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant. In other words, these abortion rates reflect the rate at which U.S. women of reproductive age have an abortion each year.[41] While White women obtain 60% of all abortions, African American women are three times more likely to have an abortion. [42]

In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.[43]

?

[TheRealVille]

Around 17-18 years ago I talked to an old country Baptist Pastor, of some 60 years. At the time he was just over 80 years old. As we discussed the democrats unfortunate decision to align themselves with the abortion rights movement, he defended the democrats as if they were somehow synonomous with christianity or something. As everyone should know, the Lord's stand against abortion, gay rights, and other social stigma, will never 'evolve'. In my view, there is no excuse for a christian to vote for a candidate that, on the one hand says he is pro labor (which folks believe to be good for them) while on the other, says he is pro choice. In short, I believe that christians who vote democratic for what they believe to be the sake of their job picture, while winking at the fact that same candidate will support and even strengthen the nation's resolve to murder the unnborn, are kidding themselves if they think the Lord is okay with that.

I don't know, is it possible what we're talking about is really past the old timers ability to grasp? I tend to think they just cannot concieve of a generation that is actually so brazen, they would act with contempt to circumvent the natural laws of God. Here is the list of attributes which will characterize most men at the end of time;

2 Timothy 3:1-4 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

The democats of yester year didn't have many of the above listed character flaws. Today's democrat does, and hence, is capable of generating ads showing Paul Ryan shoving grandma off a cliff and suggesting Mitt Romney is responsible for the cancer death of a laid off steel worker's wife.
But, to me, and as you mentioned, the really troubling thing about all this is why good folks continue to support these rascals. If they weren't getting the votes, they wouldn't be in DC redefining America.

Republicans/conservatives brought you legalized abortion, and just because a candidate tells you what you want to hear, doesn't mean he is going to try to change it. The court has been conservative leaning for years, is abortion still legal?

[Hoot Gibson]

Show us the legislation he supported.

User your Search button. The issue has been discussed extensively more than once. Obama's your man, you should know these things without having the facts spoon fed to you repeatedly.

[TheRealVille]

User your Search button. The issue has been discussed extensively more than once. Obama's your man, you should know these things without having the facts spoon fed to you repeatedly.

You don't know the legislation off the top of your head? Help me out.

[Hoot Gibson]

You don't know the legislation off the top of your head? Help me out.

Yes, I do know it off the top of my head, but if you are not interested in doing a little bit of your own research, then I am not going to waste my time. If I want to read Obama propaganda, then I can just use Google and cut out the middle man.

[Hoot Gibson]

?

The meaning of the bolded passage is crystal clear. The statistics given include all women, not just pregnant women. The numbers and meaning would be much different if the rates were given on a "per 1,000 pregnant women" basis.

[TheRealVille]

Yes, I do know it off the top of my head, but if you are not interested in doing a little bit of your own research, then I am not going to waste my time. If I want to read Obama propaganda, then I can just use Google and cut out the middle man.

You were the one that claimed he supported the legislation, I shouldn't have to look it up. Should I just take your word for what you stated as being true. I don't. You are a documented twister.

[TheRealVille]

The meaning of the bolded passage is crystal clear. The statistics given include all women, not just pregnant women. The numbers and meaning would be much different if the rates were given on a "per 1,000 pregnant women" basis.

How can you admit non pregnant women into abortion statistics?

[Hoot Gibson]

You were the one that claimed he supported the legislation, I shouldn't have to look it up. Should I just take your word for what you stated as being true. I don't. You are a documented twister.

And you claimed that the abortion rate did not go up after 1973 but you provided no documentation. Hypocrisy, anyone?

If you are interested in the truth, then you will look it up yourself instead of trying to waste my time. I don't believe that most Obama supporters have any more interest in the truth than their Dear Leader does.

[Hoot Gibson]

How can you admit non pregnant women into abortion statistics?

The same way that you can state any statistic on different bases. Using a "per 1,000 women" basis is easier and because of periodic census counts and annual population estimates done by the Census Bureau, it should be more accurate than trying to estimate the number of pregnant women and using that number as the basis.

[TheRealVille]

And you claimed that the abortion rate did not go up after 1973 but you provided no documentation. Hypocrisy, anyone?

If you are interested in the truth, then you will look it up yourself instead of trying to waste my time. I don't believe that most Obama supporters have any more interest in the truth than their Dear Leader does.

I didn't say it didn't go up. I said it didn't go up much after it was made legal, taking into account the population increase. I don't remember the exact numbers before 1973, but it was in the 900K range. After 1973, it was in the 1.2 mil range. But, the death rate of the mothers went down.

[TheRealVille]

The same way that you can state any statistic on different bases. Using a "per 1,000 women" basis is easier and because of periodic census counts and annual population estimates done by the Census Bureau, it should be more accurate than trying to estimate the number of pregnant women and using that number as the basis.

So you are saying that unpregnant women can be figured into the abortion rate?

[Hoot Gibson]

So you are saying that unpregnant women can be figured into the abortion rate?

Certainly, it is done all the time. Such statistics are also commonly given in a "per x women of child bearing age." Why do you find that odd? I am sure that you can probably find abortion statistics that are on a "abortions per 1000 pregnancies" or "abortions per live birth" basis, but I think that it is more common to use either adult women or adult women of child bearing age for both birth and abortion stats. What difference does it make as long as the basis of the statistics is clearly stated?

[TheRealThing]

Republicans/conservatives brought you legalized abortion, and just because a candidate tells you what you want to hear, doesn't mean he is going to try to change it. The court has been conservative leaning for years, is abortion still legal?

Yes it is, but, that's not the end of the story. Republicans made a resurgence, in the congressional campaign of 1994 with the introduction of their Contract with America. The provisions, of which, represented the view of many conservative republicans on the issues of shrinking the size of government, promoting lower taxes and greater entrepreneurial activity, and both tort reform and welfare reform. Sounds familiar doesn't it? And, you may remember how Bill Clinton was credited with welfare reform. His reform initiatives were first forged in the hallowed halls and they were referred to as legislation. Just a reminder, as we haven't seen any lately. With their ideals in question and with popularity on the wane, republicans finally figured out that the conservative values under which they were elected had indeed not become quite as passe as they thought. And as a result, once again returned to those traditional values in time for the sweeping elections of 2010, when control of the House of Representatives was returned to the republicans in the biggest power shift since 1948.

The voters have the attention of the republicans firmly in place now. It is the voters who hold the real power in this country, not the legislators, a fact I believe escapes most folks. So, to your point; republicans may have wavered in times past, that isn't so surprising and I'm ok with it as long as voters keep them honest in elections and keep their feet on the path. The republicans have gotten their attitude adjustment. The dems as yet, have not completely learned what side their bread is buttered on. They're still living in denial after the sweeping elections of 2010. However, after the elections of 2012 I predict the attitude adjustment given to them at the hands of the voting public will be something they can no longer afford to ignore. If a candidate lies to me I can hardly be held responsible for supporting him, however, if a candidate openly declares his support for the antitraditional social agenda and I vote for him anyway, I'm as guilty as he is.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Did you ever study the numbers of abortions before 1973, and now? And the percentage of deaths to the mothers in "back room abortion clinics", then and now, in safe settings. I have. Do a little research. To the ones too lazy to study the stats, the abortions are basically the same, taking into account the population rise, all except for the death to the mothers rate. I did a study on it a long time ago, and the abortion numbers before '73, and after aren't that far apart.

What's your point? Whether the abortion was legal or illegal it still resulted in the murdering of a baby. And, as for your "safe settings", these settings aren't safe for the innocent ones, are they?

In a civilized society, there is no justification for killing our preborn children. It is very revealing that Kardashian and the Democratic Party have so much empathy for terrorists but no concern for our preborns.

[nky]

So you are saying that unpregnant women can be figured into the abortion rate?

Looks like those firgues are rates per women and it's comparing statically the same data. If they used just pregnant women the rate would be much higher but still show that minority women have abortions at 4+ higher rate that white women. Seems to me that those who support abortions are really just trying to wipe out a certain segment of the population.

[nky]

Show us the legislation he supported.

you mean this one that President Obama did not vote for while in the state senate of Illinois?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...B1093.html

92nd General Assembly
Status of SB1093

Amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.
Provides that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of
the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in
a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a
physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
who shall address the child's viability and provide medical care for
the child. Provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results
in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable
attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or
inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and
provide medical care for the child. Provides that a live child born as
a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person
and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice
shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.

[nky]

read more at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-ch...rti_1.html

[Hoot Gibson]

you mean this one that President Obama did not vote for while in the state senate of Illinois?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...B1093.html

92nd General Assembly
Status of SB1093

Amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975.
Provides that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of
the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in
a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a
physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
who shall address the child's viability and provide medical care for
the child. Provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results
in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable
attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or
inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and
provide medical care for the child. Provides that a live child born as
a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person
and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice
shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.

Not only did he not vote for legislation to require that all babies born alive receive medical treatment, he either voted against or voted "present" several times on similar language.

Here is an audio recording of Obama arguing against the bill:



...and here is a , who testified before Obama's committee about personally witnessing babies being moved to a dirty linen closet and left alone to die.

Barack Obama is not a decent human being. No decent human being would argue against requiring hospitals to provide medical treatment to newborn babies. He was content to leave treatment up to the doctors who botched the abortions, which would clearly be a conflict of interest. Concern for the patient who sought an abortion should be secondary when the babie manages to survive the "procedure." In Obama's opinion, the problem with the proposed law was that it would interfere with the relationship between the abortion seeking patient and her doctor.