Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Ann endorsed the idea of promoting democracy as a solution to terrorism, and described our efforts as "imposing a revolution" on Iraq. But is democracy really a solution to terrorism? The Islamic terrorist group HAMAS beat the Marxist terrorist group Fatah for control of the Palestinian Authority. Democratic elections have brought militant Islamists to power in Algeria and Turkey, leading to a bloody civil war and several peaceful coups, respectively. The Muslim Brotherhood, another Islamic terrorist group, gained support following the rigged elections in Egypt. And Iran's Islamic revolution clearly had popular support at the time, though it no longer does.
Democracy is the product of cultural factors including belief in basic human rights, willingness to accept defeat and allow opposition, and skepticism of human nature and government power. Such cultural traits come about through generations of gradual change and improvement. They cannot be imposed in few years. In other words, the positive traits that we associate with democracy are its cause, not its result. (More on the problems with Muslim democracy here and here.)
What about "imposing a revolution?" If our government can impose a revolution in Iraq, why can't it impose a revolution in America? Imposing a revolution essentially means using authoritarian government power and government spending to remake the entire society to be better than it was before. But conservatives know that government cannot do this. Overthrowing the existing order of society almost inevitably makes things worse, as happened in the French and Russian revolutions, and elsewhere. Terry Jeffrey, the editor of Human Events, the paper that Coulter works for, understands this, as he writes in a recent column:
"We can and have used democracy as a weapon to destabilize our enemies and we may do so again," said Hyde. "But if we unleash revolutionary forces in the expectation that the result can only be beneficent, I believe we are making a profound and perhaps uncorrectable mistake. History teaches that revolutions are very dangerous things, more often destructive than benign, and uncontrollable by their very nature. Upending established order based on a theory is far more likely to produce chaos than shining uplands."
Imposing a revolution is neoconservative, not conservative. I know from her other writings that Ann wants to eliminate most of our federal government. (See "I'd Burn my Neighbor's House Down" in How to Talk to a Liberal.) Let's hope that she applies her belief in limited government to foreign policy, as well.
Let's review. Schwarz is pro-abortion. He is anti-gun, having voted against concealed carry when he was in the legislature. In 2002, he ran for governor on a platform of raising taxes. In fact, he ran to the left of Granholm. Small wonder that he lost every county to Dick Posthumus in the primary. In 2004, he ran for an open seat in congress, and won the primary with 28 percent of the vote when five other candidates (stupidly) split the votes of conservatives.
He has continued his liberal ways in Congress. The Club for Growth has set up a website to expose his liberal record on economic issues, and recent ratings from the National Taxpayers Union confirm his record as a big-government liberal.
This time around, Schwarz has drawn a primary challenge from conservative former State Rep. Tim Walberg. Walberg is everything that Schwarz isn't--pro-life, pro-gun, a fiscal conservative for smaller government.
Now, it appears that the Republican establishment is backing Schwarz. State Party Chairman Saul Anuzius has endorsed him, as has longtime national committeeman Chuck Yob. Schwarz is also being supported by former State Rep. Clark Bisbee, who in 2004 received the Right-to-Life endorsement (what were they thinking?)
It appears that the Republican establishment would endorse any Republican incumbent. Well, this is one Republican group that won't be supporting Schwarz. For more information Tim Walberg, go to his campaign site, and for more on Schwarz, check out joeschwarzisaliberal.com.
UPDATE: I have posted detailed analyses of Schwarz's positions on abortion and gun rights.
In the February 27, 2006 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru discusses Rep. Nathan Deal’s (R-GA) proposed legislation that would change the laws stating that anyone born in this country is automatically a citizen. (The legislation states that children of illegal immigrants are not citizens.) The article made some interesting points and had some interesting statistics that are valuable to any College Republican’s arguments on illegal immigration.
1 out of every 10 children born in the
The article references the Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org) and a document by Thomas Cooley – “The General Principles of Constitutional Law” – which can be found here: (http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tmc/pcl.htm)(the part which is referenced is in Chapter IV, Section III).
Ponnuru is against the bill because he believes that the courts will ignore it whenever it is applicable, and because it works against some of the results of our illegal immigration problem and not against illegal immigration itself.
Rep. Tom Tancredo has an opponent in his August 8 primary. Juan Botero is a resident of
On the one hand, I have serious doubts about the sincerity of many of the politicians who claim to be pro-life. I suspect that many politicians say that they are pro-life to win primaries but are unwilling or afraid to actually vote to ban abortion. They are all too comfortable to hide behind Roe vs. Wade. I'm glad to see that in South Dakota, at least, this isn't true.
On the other hand, I have to wonder if the proponents of this bill really know what they are doing. I want abortion to be banned as much as they do, but will this bill actually aid that goal?
It will probably take about ten seconds for this bill to be struck down by the federal courts. If South Dakota planned to tell the federal courts to mind their own business, and resist the unconstitutional infringement on its state sovereignty, I'd be all for it. But instead, the plan seems to be to challenge Roe vs. Wade at the Supreme Court.
The proponents of this bill seem to hold a very serious conceptual error. They seem to think that the Supreme Court simply made an error in judgment in Roe, and if presented with better, more compelling arguments, it will reverse itself.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court doesn't decide cases based on what the law says, it decides what it wants to happen and then constructs plausible-sounding arguments to justify its decision. Sometimes, it throws in some references to the Constitution for good measure.
What are the chances that our current Supreme Court will overturn Roe? There are (at most) four anti-Roe votes. Overturning Roe would require Anthony Kennedy to change his mind again (unlikely), or John Paul Stevens leaving the Court and being replaced by a pro-life judge (possible, but I wouldn't count on it).
I don't question the dedication of the sponsors of this bill. However, zeal is not sufficient to win a battle. You also need good strategy. If I were in the South Dakota legislature, I would probably have voted for this bill. But I can't help but wonder whether passing it is a wise choice.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Now when arguing whether the war in Iraq fits these classifications, there are several details that must be considered.
1. Are there innocent people dying under the current regime of Iraq? Yes there was under the control of Saddam Hussein. He is actuall currently on trial for such crimes against humanity.
2. Is the country a threat to the peace of the region or of the world? I would definitely like to think so considering that for the last 15 years Saddam had been trying to manufacture Weapons of Mass Destruction and has not neccessarily been that quiet about it.
3. Is there some other way to solve the issues at hand? Well, diplomacy was tried through the U.N. and through the U.S. and neither worked. The odd thing though is that the U.N. originally stated that armed force could be used in the case of Iraq under Resolution 1442. Of course, we all know what happened after that when the U.N. basically stabbed the U.S. in the back.
Overall, I would say that the reasons to go to war in Iraq are neccessary and just. There is a tyrannical dictator killing his own citizens and is openly trying to get WMDs. People then ask the question, "well where are the WMDs?" Oh, let me think, Saddam has had a better part of a decade to hide or to get rid of all of his WMDs. I still think that they are there and that it is going to take a little longer to find them. And whether or not the WMDs are still there, I don't really think that should be the only reason the U.S. is there. He was killing his own people! Does anybody see anything wrong with that? It seems as if people would rather help in other regions around the world when they see crimes against humanity, but when it comes to the Middle East, they say forget that and they don't like us. Oh, so we are only suppose to help people that like us? So that is why we were mixed into a mess in Somalia in the 1990's, because they liked us.
And here is the final kicker, now that Saddam is captured and being tried for his crimes against humanity, everybody is rejoicing at the fall of a dictator. Hello! That dictator wouldn't be in the court room if it weren't for the war.
I truly feel that what our government and our troops are doing in Iraq is neccessary and just. God Bless our troops and our government.
(This post originated on my personal blog in October of 2005)
Here's how Christoff describes it: "The state Senate is to begin hearings Tuesday on how to commit to law the kind of public behavior the gun lobby views as an expression of freedom: Shoot first and ask questions later."
This is nonsense, of course. Nothing in the proposed law would allow you to shoot without a reasonable belief that your life is in imminent danger.
He continues: "Justifiable homicide would become less complicated. No longer would law-abiding, gun-toting citizens have to consider alternatives in the face of bodily harm, such as fleeing the scene or calling police."
What sense does this make? Consider the situation. Someone is trying to kill you. You are seconds away from death. With not a moment to lose, you...
..whip out your cell phone and call the police! At this point, it seems appropriate to quote the title of a documentary produced by the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: "Dial 911 and Die."
Any serious consideration must lead to the conclusion that the police cannot protect you against imminent harm. That is not their job. The job of police is to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. To the extent that they are successful, they "protect" you by locking up some bad guys and deterring others. But if some criminal decides to attack you, the police cannot protect you. That is your job.
What about the other alternative, fleeing the scene? Many current state laws contain a "duty to retreat." Of course, retreating typically means turning your back to an attacker, which could easily put you at greater risk. That's why state laws typically contain some provision stating that retreat is only required if it can be done in complete safety. Of course, there is no such thing as complete safety.
The issue is not whether you should consider your alternatives, assuming you even have time to do so. The issue is whether you should be sent to jail if somebody doesn't like your choice. Laws such as the duty to retreat tend to be applied arbitrarily, as people later second-guess choices made in the heat of the moment.
The column quotes a member of the Brady Bunch as saying that the law could let gang members off and that innocent people aren't being sent to jail. I've read many examples of morally justified people who did go to jail for shooting in self-defense, although I'm too tired to find any of them now. Such cases aren't common, but they do happen.
The gang member argument is a red herring. There is nothing in our current law that stops a gang member from claiming self defense. Believe it or not, even gang members have the right to self defense as long as they are not actively committing a crime at the time. Having a subjective duty to retreat in the law isn't going to help. Proving murder would require the same sort of evidence that it usually does.
I read another article recently in which another Brady type was quoted as saying that this bill will bring back the wild west, complete with blood running in the streets: "Some critics say such "Wild West" laws are vigilante justice, and commonplace confrontations and more likely turn to violence." At what point are you wrong so much that you lose any credibility whatsoever? Anti-gunners say the same thing about every pro-gun bill, and it never happens. Never! Many states already have laws like this and they haven't had any problems with them. Quoting the Brady Bunch about gun control is like quoting David Duke about civil rights.
As for the argument about changing the character of society, God forbid that criminals should run from honest citizens instead of citizens running from criminals.
What's really terrible about this column isn't that it's wrong about a question of policy. Instead, what's worst is that if (as I expect) this bill becomes law, God forbid that anyone actually believes what he reads in the Free Press. If he does, we really could see a situation where someone thinks he can shoot somebody he doesn't like. Then we really would have an innocent victim and an (otherwise) honest citizen in jail. Liberal lies come with a high price.
"It is night and
by the light of the minimum-wage moon we can see
the long pink tongues of the bosses hanging out
and the dilated white eyeballs of the employees as they flee
through woods, lacking any sense of
solidarity or collective organizing power."
This is what we're dealing with, folks.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
After recently reading an article that I found on FoxNews.com, I am beginning to ask that very question. The article was discussing a Kansas based church(Westboro Baptist Church) that has made it a habit to demonstrate at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq. I am not just talking about the usual 'liberal' demonstrations aimed at showing disapproval for the war in Iraq, but rather a group of demonstrators from the Westboro Baptist Church that claim to be Christian that use such slogans on their signs as "God Hates America" and "Thank God for 9/11". The churches controversial slogan of "God Hates Fags" has even graces the title of the their website. Members of the church have also been known to say that the death of American soldiers in Iraq is God's punishment on the U.S. for its' toleration of homosexuals.
According to the FoxNews article, several families of fallen American soldiers are seeking out legislation that would prevent such 'funeral protesters'. According to the same article, "at least 14 states are considering measures to ban demonstrations outside of funeral services." The legislative ban, if passed into law, would draw a great deal of controversy considering that it could possibly infringe on the first amendment rights of the demonstrators.
For the record, I feel that this group has tarnished the true identity of God and of Christianity. Their slogan "God Hates Fags", is truly radical and incredibly false. Christian doctrine teaches that God hates the sin, not the person. The actions of this group, which are far more than just protests at funerals, are nothing less than repulsive. This group is distorting Christianity just as the terrorists are distorting Islam. Thank God for such veterans as the individuals in Minnesota that acted as a shield, in opposition to the protesters, for the funeral procession of Cpl. Andrew Kemple.God Bless America. God Bless Our Troops.
"Families Seek Legislative Remedies From Funeral Protesters"
"Veterans guard Minnesota soldier's family from pickets"
The Westboro Babtist Church Homepage(Group responsible for the protests)http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
(This post originated on my personal blog)
Once everyone arrived, we rehashed the event. We talked about how liberal questions were so lame. We talked about Tom's experiences at Gitmo. We talked about our run-ins with various liberal professors. We talked about our flyers for Buchanan and this event. Coulter loved all of it. She particularly loved my idea for the "are you offended yet?" flyer.
Ann was great. She made a point of going up to everyone at the table and shaking hands. She asked everyone's name and year and major. She signed everything and posed for pictures with everybody. By the end of the evening, she declared that we had the best College Republican group in the country! It was an awesome evening.
Tormala attacked Hoogendyk personally, saying "We have always printed ballots and signs in other languages. We've done it in Polish, Italian, Dutch. Maybe if he was representative 'John Smith,' he could say this with a little more credibility."
What exactly is that supposed to mean? I can only assume that this is a racist attack on Hoogendyk's Dutch ancestry. Actually, Hoogendyk is the perfect example of why this bill is necessary. He is the child of immigrants who came to America from the Netherlands. Would he be a state representative now if his parents had only taught him Dutch?
Tormala's other "argument" was that "legislation is not necessary since 97 percent of the Michigan population already speaks English." What kind of argument is this? First, I'm suspicious of that statistic. Do 97% speak English as their primary language, or do they just know some English?
Second, this says nothing about who this bill will affect. The cost of translating government documents into other languages falls on all taxpayers, not just the few who want their ballots in Urdu.
Third, even assuming this only affects a few people, what's wrong with that? Tormala seems to be assuming that this bill would benefit English speakers at the expense of immigrants. But this is incorrect. The chief beneficiaries of this bill will be immigrants. It doesn't do immigrants any favors to keep them segregated in small ethnic communities, unable to communicate with the larger population. I find it very ironic that liberals pride themselves on opposing segregation, when they are now its chief advocates.
Fourth, even assuming that this bill isn't necessary now, that doesn't mean that it won't be necessary in the future. What's wrong with preventing a problem before it gets bad? There are parts of this country where English is not spoken. Is that what Tormala wants here?
If this is the best that liberals can do, this bill should soon be on Granholm's desk.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Mark Steyn explains why we should get out of the UN.
Richard Lessner documents the UN's continuing efforts to control the internet.
Will Grigg reports that Bill Clinton could soon run the UN.
Phyllis Schlafly exposes UNESCO's efforts to influence American education.
Finally, John McManus writes that "free trade" agreements like the World Trade Organization and the proposed FTAA are used by the UN to impose world government.
We clearly won the flyering war. No matter how many of our flyers the leftists ripped down, we put up more to replace them. This took a lot of work, but it was worth it.
I wonder what the liberals would do if somebody ripped down their flyers. Could they find the dedication to repost everything a dozen times?
I love how the Herald called our flyers childish. It wasn't all the mustache-drawing and horn-drawing that was childish, it was our advertising our event.
Liberals are obsessed with Nazis. They kept drawing swasticas and writing "seig heil" on our flyers. What's funny about this is that last semester, some actual Nazis from National Vanguard posted flyers around campus. They didn't get torn down. The flyers were attacking Israel, so the left probably agreed with them. The liberals are closer to Nazis than they are to us!
Eventually, other people started doing take-offs of our flyers. One flyer promoting another event said "not as conservative as Ann Coulter, but just as crazy." Another flyer said "Ann Coulter is a deadhead," along with a picture from her website. We aren't sure whether this was supporting or attacking her.
I know I can't be objective here, but I still love the "Ann Coulter is coming to WMU...Are you offended yet?" It just perfectly captured the reaction of the liberals.
It's touching how liberals recycled our flyers. But they forgot that in the slogan "reduce, reuse, recycle," reuse comes before recycle. I rescued at least a dozen flyers from recycling bins and put them to good reuse.
My favorite flyer defacement: In Sangren Hall, somebody disliked our "Liberals are wrong about everything" flyer. He wrote "including civil rights, affirmative action..." So liberals are both for and against racial discrimination. Priceless.
If you have any interesting flyering-related anecdotes, please post them in the comments.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
There were more than 2000 people in that room: 1400 seated, and hundreds standing and sitting. I heard that about a thousand had to be turned away. The line ran down the hall, down the far stairs, and down the hall on the first floor.
The speech was great. Coulter is great at the one-liners, and she really demolished the left. I'm not sure what my favorite joke was (any thoughts?) The best substantive fact of the speech was that after Marxism Congressman Ron Dellums said that he wanted to demolish all our intelligence agencies, the house democrats elected him chairman of the armed services committee. Who says liberals aren't traitors?
The low point for me was when Coulter strayed a little to close to neoconservatism. Saying that we can impose a revolution is highly problematic.
The audience was very respectful. I was surprised. The security worked out very well. The metal detectors were a pain (for the people who had to go through them), but they were worth it. Putting on a show of force was very effective.
The question-and answer session was fun. A number of conservatives asked questions. The liberal questions were laughable. It's really pathetic that this was the best they could do. Derek Moss was a hero for asking college republicans in the military to stand up.
Overall, what an event! I'm still running on a Coulter buzz the next day.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Perhaps most amazingly, he turned down the chance to become king, choosing instead to help found a constitutional republic like none that had ever existed before. He believed in very strict limitations on government power. He should be a hero to all conservatives. He was truly the father of our country.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
At least one newspaper has seen the light. The Sioux City Journal attacked Congressman Steve King for voting against the bill, but recently changed its mind.
Until people recognize that wasting money is not compassionate and saving money is not cruel, we will continue to have out-of-control spending in Washington.
Monday, February 20, 2006
In the February 15 edition of the Western Herald, Mr. Ron Riekki wrote an editorial discussing the flyers for the upcoming Ann Coulter event. Mr. Riekki made a few remarks that are worth a second look (not that the remarks themselves had any value, but that the issues that they mentioned were significant).
Mr. Riekki discusses the liberal “positions” of raising taxes and raising the minimum wage. Sen. John Kerry’s stance against tax cuts for the rich seems noble due to the vast fortune that he has earned through his “I do” to Madame Heinz Kerry (to say nothing of the former Julia Thorne). Mr. Riekki suggests that those tax dollars could have been sent to aid the hurricane victims. This stance seems to suggest that the government should take a page out of Robin Hood’s book – rob the rich to help the poor. But why are Democrats obsessed with using the money of those who work to help those who don’t?
Democrats are communists, not capitalists. If taxation serves to redistribute wealth, then the goal of amassing wealth is simply to help people who are unable to amass wealth. The goal of capitalism is to amass wealth, whereas the goal of communism is homogenization.
The Democrats goal, it seems, is to destroy our country. Capitalism is a purely economic ideology that is compatible with the ideas like freedom of speech, liberty, and other ideals that are espoused by our democratic republic. Communism is not compatible with freedom of speech, liberty, or most of the other ideals that are the foundation of our country. Legislating in favor of communist values in a capitalist country only serves to weaken the economy and the foundation of that country.
Mr. Riekki also asserts that the liberal organizations’ flyers promote something positive when they discuss raising the minimum wage. I will first address the marketing aspect of these flyers.
When a “living wage” advocate sees a flyer promoting a meeting about raising the minimum wage, he becomes interested in attending the meeting. However, almost every other individual looks at and then moves on unaffected. When any individual who cares about politics looks at a flyer that says “Liberals are wrong about everything,” a reaction occurs within them almost immediately. It is for this reason that more people will attend the Ann Coulter speech than attended the “Raise the Wage” event.
Secondly, as one of my colleagues noted in an earlier post to this blog, the Democrats main reason for the “Raise the Wage” initiative is to grab votes for Granholm in November. If Democrats were actually interested in poor people they would do something that helped create jobs, not something that destroys jobs.
Lastly, if Mr. Riekki and the liberals at WMU are interested in what Ann Coulter or the College Republicans think, they can come to the speech and to the meetings that are advertised on College Republican flyers. These flyers may be found in the nearest trash can.
Riekki notes in passing the rampant defacement of flyers, but claims that this is our fault because we dared to say that liberals are wrong. The poor liberals just couldn't control themselves!
He makes mention of some "positive" liberal flyers. I guess he didn't notice the "Bush Step Down" and "American War Crimes" flyers that liberals have posted in the past. Maybe they weren't as "omnipresent" as our flyers. Or maybe Riekki's "no criticism" rule only applies to us.
He goes on: "Instead of utilizing class and integrity with their posters, they’re aiming for argumentation, a furthering of bipartisanship, [I think he means partisanship, not bipartisanship] a bigger gap in the country. And I’m not even mad about it anymore. I used to be furious. Now I just feel weak. I feel sad when I see those posters and disappointed with WMU and especially the WMU Republicans. Because I know they could aim higher. They could try a little harder at creating a positive college atmosphere, but instead they’ve got their sights set on Jerry Springer meets Bill O’Reilly radical emptiness." Everything was great until those darn conservatives spoke up!
Finally, Riekki alludes to the attack against Buchanan last year. Apparently that was our fault too: "Let’s not try and [sic] create environments where someone feels so disenfranchised and constantly mocked that they [sic] want to throw a pie in Coulter’s face. Instead, let’s keep things professional in the political arena." So now he excuses assault because the perpetrator "feels so disenfranchised and constantly mocked." What makes him think that some liberals assault speakers because they feel bad instead of just being fascists intolerant of any disagreement? Why does he condemn us while excusing them? Unfortunately for Riekki's despondant liberals thesis, the purely informational flyers with just the time and location of Coulter's speech were just as likely to be defaced or torn down. It isn't the "offensiveness" of the flyers that liberals object to, it's the mere fact that someone might hear a different point of view.
This is so typical of a liberal. After reading his piece, I wondered how consistently Riekki applies his "don't be negative" rule. Surprise, surprise! It turns out that three of his last four columns are spent attacking things he doesn't like. Aside from attacking us, he also attacks rich people and attacks the war in Iraq.
Ann Coulter has described liberalism as "the absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else." Looks like Ron's just been made. Rest assured, as long as there are liberals on this campus, we will continue to expose them. That feeling of weakness means you're losing.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Ann Coulter remarks that conservatives can be confirmed.
Coulter then explains that abortion is turning people against the Democrats.
Phyllis Schlafly reports on judges' efforts to destroy parents' rights to control their children's education.
Schlafly then writes about a judge's attack on intelligent design.
The New American explains that we must limit court jurisdiction.
POLITICAL UPDATES are archived here.
UPDATE: Link fixed.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
In the end, with a little help from Aslan, the Head is exposed as a lunatic and removed from the school. But "After that, the Head's friends saw that the Head was no use as a Head, so they made her an Inspector to interfere with the other Heads. And when they found she wasn't much good even at that, they got her into Parliament where she lived happily ever after."
Sometimes it seems that every government school has turned into the Experimant House.
So I was reading the news and those who do as well have learned that the state of Mass. if forcing Wal-Mart to sell the morning after pill. This comes after three women sue for being "denied" the pill by Wal-Mart. OK. It's not like it's sitting on a back corner in the store and they're not selling it. It's not in the store. Hardly a denial.
These people have to be the most pathetic that have ever existed. This would be like me sueing a Jewish deli for not offering ham. Someone might think it's stupid they don't offer it, but they can take their business elsewhere. They have the right to stock what they want or don't want. It's rediculous. Wal-Mart made a choice to not sell it. If you don't like it, go to another store. That's the beauty of the free market. A lot of so-called "pro women" groups are calling this a success. But anyone who honestly believes that needs to learn a bit more about our free country. They can't appreciate the beauty of people being able to sell goods that they choose to sell. The cash register at Wal-Mart isn't for sale. Maybe I should sue because they won't sell that to me. Best Buy doesn't sell the morning after pill. Let's go after them next! We need to get that stuff on every corner in America! I hope these women are happy because they've helped compromise that which makes America beautiful. And the state should be equally happy.
Dr. Rebeckah Gee of Boston (one of the plantiffs) is quoted saying in regards to this matter "My patients should not have to shop around." I don't recall that being a right. Maybe I missed it and it's shoved in between life and liberty. Shopping around is something we ALL do! If something's not at one store, I go to another. I usually patronize those stores that carry stuff I want, offer good prices, and good costomer service. I shop at places like Best Buy and Meijer because they offer the products I want at prices I can live with. I don't shop at Victoria's Secret because they don't offer products I would buy. Hey! How about we sue them for not offering items for men to purchase? Afterall, that's discrimination!
Upon further research I've come to learn that the reason for all this hoop-la is that state policy requires drug stores to carry "commonly prescribed medicines." Dictionary.com defines medicine as "an agent, such as a drug, used to treat desease or injury." Apparently a pregnancy is now a desease or injury of sorts to people on the left. People get pregnant all the time. Where's WHO to handle this outbreak? Also, how is the morning after pill "commonly prescribed"? I hear commonly prescribed and I think antibiotics, cold medicine, allergy medicine, that sort of stuff. I find it a stretch to include the morning after pill.
I think we all need to take a stand against this regardless of which side you're on regarding the morning after pill. It sets a very nasty precidence. But in the end, I have to say there's a bit of irony. A group who's all about the right for a woman to choose is against a store's right to choose.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Starting now, WMU College Republican POLITICAL UPDATES will be available on this blog! Each week, we pick an important topic and link to news and opinion peices that you probably haven't seen.
The debate over immigration continues. Tom Tancredo exposes the Mexican invasion of America.
Juan Mann argues that immigration betrayals are part of a larger war on American sovereignty.
Phyllis Schlafly discusses the economic effects of immigration.
Mark Kirkorian reports progress nationwide.
Pat Buchanan argues that immigration presents a demographic disater to the GOP.
Mac Johnson skewers the open-borders Wall Street Journal.
Our POLITICAL UPDATES are arcvhived here.