Live on Talkshoe: Mon, Wed, & Fri at 10:00pm Eastern Call in: (724) 444-7444 • Talkcast ID: 25742 [display_podcast]

Political News

• An Open Letter to Kit Bond
• Border vulnerabilities exposed
• Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby
• HillaryCare Door Wide Open to Illegal Aliens
• Senate approves hate-crime bill, tries to avert veto

Continue reading →

Hillary has said that her health care plan will not apply to illegal immigrants. She said that exact thing to George Stephanopoulos. It went like this:

George Stephanopoulos asked, “Would illegal immigrants be covered under your plan?”

Clinton told him they “would not be covered, no” but then said she would provide a “safety net” for illegal aliens “for public health reasons.”

“But, we did not cover them in ‘93/’94 and my plan does not cover them now,” she added.
(emphasis mine.)

That’s why it was really confusing^* to find that a Spanish news agency published a piece titled “Plan médico de Hillary Clinton incluiría a indocumentados” or, in English:

According to the article, Clinton told a reporter “plan de salud no incluye a inmigrantes indocumentados en este momento” in a phone interview. In English that quote literally means: “plan of health does not include undocumented immigrants at the moment.”

At the first-ever presidential Spanish-language debate on September 10, Clinton promised her audience her healthcare plan “will cover everyone.”

“We will make it clear as a rich nation with the values that should be the best in the world and for all make it absolutely positive that everyone will have healthcare,” Clinton said. “We’re going to make it clear that there will be no parent who ever is told no when it comes to getting healthcare for their children.”

Add another bill to your stack of payments. Title it: Health Care Coverage for Illegal Aliens. You will be paying this bill under HillaryCare. Don’t try to kid yourself into thinking otherwise. She is playing the public for a fool.

^{*(It wasn’t really confusing. We here at AAB know she is a lying, conniving politician. Her last name is Clinton.)}

As a father of four, I understand the mix of anticipation and apprehension that goes into the first few doctor visits during a pregnancy. We have never had to deal with any difficulties, and I pray we never do. It is one of the scariest things in my life to think about. For others, it is a reality they have to live with.

KansasCity.com chronicled the pregnancy of Jessica Weatherford and her husband Dave. They knew early in the pregnancy that their son, Zeke, would not live long following the birth. They relied on faith and family for support.

It is a strong story of a couple’s love for their child.

Their baby boy will not endure beyond Jessica’s womb. Zeke, they have named him, short for Ezekiel, meaning God is my strength. Jessica wanted to name him soon after the diagnosis. She wanted him to be as real to the world as he already was to her.

Dave, 35, is her best friend. He has helped carry her grief during this months-long journey. He has shared her laughter, prayers, tears. This has been his walk, too.

The doctor tugs hard and between his hands a tiny head appears, covered in wet curls.

Jessica feels her husband’s hand gripping hers. He’s as scared as she is.

The operating room is eerily quiet as everyone looks to Zeke.

Jessica has prayed that she will see beauty instead of her son’s deformities. She’s prayed that the sadness she knows is coming won’t rip her heart beyond repair. She’s prayed too that maybe God will work a miracle, make Zeke whole and perfect.

But after four months of medical tests, she’s not blinded to reality.

She knows that God has already performed one miracle: Zeke is alive.

When people at work ask me how I’m doing, I usually answer with, “Better than I deserve.”

When I read this article, I thought, “Four healthy kids. I am more blessed than I am worthy.” I may start answering with that now.

There is an audio photo gallery, but some viewer discretion is advised. I didn’t see anything too graphic. But have some tissues handy. And go hug your kid.

Another reason to be happy we live in the U.S. of A- the right to eat what we want, when we want, where we want. No “morality police” for us, thank you.

RAMALLAH, West Bank – A new squad of morality police has begun detaining Palestinians who eat or drink in public during Ramadan in the West Bank, where the Islamic month of daytime fasting was always widely observed but never imposed.

Those who dare to eat or drink are safe at home, at least for now.

Police spokesman Adnan al-Damari said police have arrested at least 50 alleged public morality offenders in Ramallah since the start of Ramadan, but would not be going after people who break the fast at home.

“The duty of the morality police is to preserve public manners in public places and to preserve the feelings of the people who are fasting,” he said.

Here in America, we sometimes take our freedom of religion for granted. We can be a believer or non-believer of any religion we choose. Eat or drink on the street in a Muslim country, and you will be arrested. Why? Because the government has chosen the religion, and everyone must be a believer.

Islamic custom demands that believers fast and refrain from self-indulgence between sunrise and sunset during Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 in the West Bank this year. The fast is largely observed across the Muslim world; voluntarily in some countries and under strict enforcement in others such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

This morning, Duane will be on Getting Political Talk Radio with Paul Stanton.

[display_podcast]

Paul has a great show and we want to say thanks for having us on his show. Check out his show at http://gettingpolitical.com/.

Senator Bond,

My name is Duane Lester. I am one of your constituents and a registered Republican.

I will not be voting for you again.

I have a wife and four children. Last year I made a little shy of $50,000. I earned that much by working quite a bit of overtime. I am able to fully cover my family with health insurance.

Yesterday, September 27, 2007, you joined with the Senate Democrats and a few other so-called Republicans to pass the expanded State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP bill.

Let me tell you exactly what this means.

It means that government has taken the place of charities and personal responsibility. Federal taxes will be raised, albeit on cigarettes, but it is still the government taking the property of citizens and redistributing it to where it thinks it should be. Where does this bill say it should be, Senator? According to the expanded SCHIP, federal taxes will possibly be given to a family of four that earns anywhere from $61,000, up to $82,000. There is no excuse for someone not to be providing for themselves at that level of income.

It could also be given to a “child” up to the age of 25. This SCHIP expansion redefines a child to be anyone up the age of 25. There is already a great health care system available to “children” of this age. All they have to do is enlist. However, I am now responsible for providing for these “children.”

This expansion is estimated to cost $35 billion dollars. I cannot believe that tab will be covered by a simple hike in federal cigarette taxes. The federal government is already spending more than it makes. The cost of this program will eventually either be taken out of my income taxes, or simply added to the already enormous national debt. One way or another, I will end up paying for this. And so will my children. It isn’t right.

I make sacrifices to provide for my family, yet you and the other members of Congress, who have forgotten what “limited government” means, disregard my effort, loot my check and redistribute my money to people with fewer dependents and more income. While I take personal responsibility for my family, I am also held accountable for others who have the means, yet fail to provide for those dependent upon them. You promote this idea with your vote.

I imagine there are many children who benefit from this program. But the program has no place in the federal government. It is not the role of government to provide for the people. Its role is to provide a safe, free environment for people to provide for themselves. Those who fail or refuse to accept personal responsibility should turn to charities, churches and family. I should not be compelled to provide for them. I gladly give to charities and churches, and I help my family when they need it. What you are doing removes the choice, and forces me to do it at the end of a gun. If I refuse to pay my taxes, I go to jail.

Give the American people the opportunity and they will help one another. That is true compassion. It still exists, but there is little incentive to give to charities when government compels people to “donate.” Compelled compassion is no compassion at all.

I have contacted your office before concerning your loose use of federal money. I have written e-mails and placed phone calls condemning your earmarks. Yet I held out hope that you might someday remember the foundation of the Republican party: fiscal responsibility, limited government, personal responsibility. I can see now my hope was misplaced.

I’m sure you and your brethren accept this role of government on the basis of promoting the general Welfare. Hogwash. That is not, nor was it ever, meant to be the meaning. Consider the following quote from James Madison, the father of the Constitution:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

I am confident that President Madison had a clearer understanding of the Constitution than the current members of our government. I am certain he understood it better than you, Senator.

The Republicans lost control of the Congress because they have forgotten what their constituents valued. We remain steadfast in our love of liberty. Because of that love, I will remain a member of the Republican party, only to cleanse it of people like yourself. We have to police our own.

I am ashamed to have you as my Senator. I look forward to your unemployment.

Sincerely,

Duane Lester

File this one under: More laws we don’t need.

The Senate today approved a long-debated measure that would expand the federal hate crime law to cover violence against gays, and in an unusual gambit to make it difficult for President Bush to carry out his veto threat, attached it to a defense bill.

First of all, a crime is a crime. What good does it do to criminalize the motive? Second, attaching this to a defense bill is a pretty chickinshit move on the part of Senate.

Sen. Gordon Smith Thought Control Advocate

Supporters of the hate-crime legislation mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes they needed to overcome a threatened filibuster. The House approved the bill earlier this year, but neither chamber appears to have the votes to override a veto.

“We have never had this bill with the potential to go as far as it is,” said Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.), one of the bill’s chief sponsors.

Standing next to a photo on the Senate floor of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally beaten in Wyoming and left to die tied to a fence in 1998 and for whom the bill is named, he added: “What happened to Matthew should happen to no one.”

And beating a college student and leaving him to die tied to a fence… already against the law. But Gordon Smith thinks passing a second law will make rednecks stop hating homosexuals. Gordon Smith is a nitwit.

The legislation — the first major expansion of the hate crime statute passed in 1968 — would expand the law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Existing federal law defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color.

What this all boils down to is this: the government wants to criminalize intention. What, exactly is intention? It’s thought. The government wants to tell you what to think. Welcome to the land of the free.

Mr. Bush, please don’t screw this one up. Get your veto pen out and start warming it up now.

Here at All American Blogger, and on the podcast, you have heard us call for moderate Muslims to take a stand against the radical Islamists who are performing acts of terror in the name of Islam. We believe there are only two ways radical Islam can be stopped. Either we have to kill every last one of them, or moderate Muslims are going to step up to the plate and get involved. Enter “Muslims Against Sharia“.

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past. We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

Here is a recent excerpt from a blog posting titled “Swedish Cartoons”

Muslims Against Sharia praise the courage of Lars Vilks, Ulf Johansson, Thorbjorn Larsson and the staff of Nerikes Allehanda and Dagens Nyheter and condemn threats issued by Abu Omar Al Baghdadi and the Islamic State of Iraq. Muslims Against Sharia will provide a payment of 100,000kr (about $15,000) for the information leading to capture or neutralization of Abu Omar Al Baghdadi.

So not only are they taking a stand against the radicals, they are apparently backing it up with cash money. We think this is pretty intriguing, and so we’re doing our best to set up an interview for the podcast. Stay tuned…

In the meantime, check out Muslims Against Sharia at http://www.reformislam.org/

The world needs more people like this.

A Peoria (Arizona) firefighter has been credited with saving the life of a neighbor’s 8-day-old boy who stopped breathing.

Shane Burdick rushed to action early Sept. 18 when a frantic mother came knocking on his door asking for assistance for a boy who had stopped breathing, said Danny Comella, a Peoria fire captain.

Burdick, 31, a seven-year veteran, dashed to the neighbor’s West Valley home near Glendale Avenue and Dysart Road, Comella said.

Burdick performed rescue breathing, a form of CPR, providing immediate oxygen to the boy’s brain and vital organs until paramedics arrived, he said.

The boy was released from the hospital the next day, Comella said.

“We would like to recognize firefighter Burdick for his selfless act, quick thinking and emergency medical training, which undoubtedly saved this child’s life,” Comella said.

The experience underscores the critical value of learning to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Comella said.

“I feel very fortunate to have saved the little baby’s life,” Burdick said. [source]

God Bless the brave men and women who serve in the Fire Department.

Great Britain is seeing more and more of its citizens turning away from government education and embracing schooling at home:

134 local education authorities in England, Scotland and Wales replied to our freedom of information request.

Of those with year-on-year trends, 103 – or 80 per cent – reported an increase in the number of children they knew were being home educated.

And in those authorities with figures for the last five years, there’s been an average increase of 61 per cent in the number of children being educated at home.

In some areas it’s far higher – Lancashire for example has seen an 829 per cent increase in home schooling since 2002.

Good for them. I am an advocate for homeschooling. I think it is the responsibility of parents to ensure their kids are educated and know parents can do a better job than government schools. The evidence is out there. Homeschoolers out perform government schoolers all the time. Not only that, but it saves Americans money:

It is estimated that there are 2 million kids homeschooled in the United States during the 2002-2003 school year. Homeschooling has been growing at a rate of about 7% over the last 4 years according the U.S. Department of Education.

According to homeschool researcher, Dr. Brian Ray, homeschoolers save American taxpayers about 10 billion dollars per year.

As a group, in study after study, homeschoolers outperform public school students in academic performance.

Win-Win situation.