Must-See Video From Summer of Mercy 2.0!

Kelly Stauffer - Summer of Mercy 2.0 from Michael Martelli on Vimeo.

Please check out this amazing video testimony from Kelly Stauffer, speaking at the Summer of Mercy rally outside Carhart's clinic in Germantown, MD on Friday evening. Kelly had a 3rd-trimester abortion when she was 14 years old. She vividly describes the horror of feeling her unborn child kicking and somersaulting inside her womb and then feeling the child go still after the lethal dose was injected into her stomach. She describes the sick feeling she had going back to her hotel that night knowing she was carrying a dead baby -- a baby she was responsible for killing. She recounts the coldness and indifference of the abortion clinic staff as she delivered her dead baby over a toilet in a janitor's closet. She recounts the deep guilt and depression she experienced over the next decade of her life, including suicidal tendencies and bulimia. Finally, she tells the story of how she came to experience God's forgiveness through attending a Catholic retreat for women struggling with post-abortive depression. She is now happily married with a 18-month-old daughter and is an outspoken advocate for the rights of the unborn. This honest, courageous, and humble woman has one of the most emotionally powerful stories you will ever hear!

The Washington Post Slanders Pro-Life Activists

Well, the Summer of Mercy has reached the ears of The Washington Post. They have weighed in with two recent "news stories" about Carhart and the Germantown protests -- two laughably biased reports filled with deceptions and inaccuracies. The most recent contribution of the paper to the Germantown late-term abortion debate is this July 31st gem entitled "Abortion Is Topic of Dueling Protests in MD." This ostensibly innocent news report is a textbook example about how the press distorts the facts and manipulates public opinion under the pretense of objective reporting.

The astute reader will notice that the report identifies the number of pro-choice demonstrators as "around 180" but makes no mention of the number of pro-life demonstrators, presumably an attempt to marginalize the pro-life opposition to Carhart. In fact, attendance at the first pro-life rally outside of the clinic on Monday morning was significantly higher than 180 -- I attended it and am confident there were at least 300 people there. The opening rally of the Summer of Mercy at Covenant Life Church had probably twice that number. Also, participants in the "Summer of Choice" are positively described as "pro-choice" and "supporters" of local physician Leroy Carhart. By contrast, participants in the "Summer of Mercy" are never positively referred to as "pro-life" or "supporters of life," only as "abortion foes" or "antiabortion demonstrators."

It only gets worse from there. The article does everything possible to discredit Keisha, the Philadelphia woman scheduled to have a late-term abortion at Carhart's clinic but who chose to keep her baby instead after talking with some pro-life activists outside of the clinic. The author quotes Carhart as saying that Keisha was a "plant" by "antiabortion forces" and leaves the accusation hanging without further comment. Is it too difficult for a paper with the resources of The Washington Post to do a little simple investigation to verify Keisha's story and determine whether or not Carhart is lying? Apparently so. But in the meantime the author subtly pushes this angle, noting sinisterly that the woman "identified herself only by her first name," as though her wish to preserve some level of privacy for herself and her family disproves her claims. (Any other time, The Post would be trumpeting the importance of preserving a woman's right to privacy to the ends of the earth!)

No mention is made of the fact that Keisha was all smiles in the video interview as she held her newborn baby and that she expressed thanks to the pro-life women outside of the clinic for the help they offered her, mentioning two specific women by name who had befriended her. She and her boyfriend referred to the pro-life activists as "beautiful people" with "good hearts" who made them "feel comfortable." No mention is made of the fact that pro-life activists referred her to organizations in Philadelphia who provided her with free pre-natal care and resources, continued to stay in touch with her up to the present day, and raised more than $1,100 to help with her financial needs at their opening night rally (which I attended). Of course, those details would not be helpful in furthering The Post's desired narrative, so the article merely makes the curt comment that "abortion foes" "talked her out of" having her abortion. As though a group of fast-talking activists manipulated her into a rash decision.

The article repeats a blatantly false claim originally found in a fawning profile the newspaper did of Carhart a week earlier: the claim that "all of the late-term abortions Carhart has done in Germantown have involved fetuses with abnormalities." Keisha specifically stated in her video that Carhart said nothing to her about any "fetal abnormalities" prior to her scheduled abortion -- her reason for the abortion had nothing to do with any actual or perceived health problems with the baby. This example alone disproves Carhart's ridiculous claim -- and not only does the article fail to mention this very important point that Keisha's baby was perfectly healthy and normal, but it twists Keisha's words in order to mislead its readers into thinking the opposite. Completely out of context, it quotes Keisha as saying "I just thank God that I had a healthy daughter," as though this occurrence was a source of unexpected relief for her!

Further belying Carhart's claim is the pro-life activist who helped Keisha choose life, Dr. Grace Morrison. She has been standing outside the clinic every week since Carhart came to Germantown in December, and said that out of the 27 women going into Carhart's clinic for abortions that she has spoken to over the past six months, only 1 of those 27 had an unborn baby with "abnormalities." In two articles in a row, The Post chose to take Carhart's claim at face value without doing even the most basic investigation into it or bothering to present any of the opposing evidence.

After discussing Keisha, the article seizes another opportune moment to caricature the pro-life activists, using a quote from Carhart to claim that they were "subjecting" the patients to "harassment." If these activists are so threatening, then why would Keisha even have stopped to talk with them in the first place, much less have been swayed by their advice? In fact, Dr. Morrison said that since Carhart's arrival in Germantown, 13 women have chosen not to go forward with scheduled abortions, at least temporarily, after conversations with pro-lifers outside of the clinic! If these activists were the hateful, angry people The Post claims, then why would any of these women have given them the time of day?

But the most disgraceful and inexcusable slander in the article comes near the end, when the author writes, "Because he [Carhart] wants to expand services, he has become a top focus of antiabortion groups. His friend and mentor, Kansas doctor George Tiller, was fatally shot by an abortion opponent in 2009." In two simple sentences, the author presents a close link between the activists peacefully protesting outside Carhart's clinic and a crazed madman who killed another abortionist two years ago in a state thousands of miles away. Tiller's murder was an evil act committed by a rogue killer that was strongly condemned by every pro-life group in the country, including the ones involved in the Summer of Mercy. That murder flew in the face of everything the pro-life movement stands for. We believe life is precious and should be protected. I have attended numerous pro-life rallies in the Germantown area over the past few months, and I have not witnessed a single expression of hatred or violence against Carhart or pro-choice activists. Over and over again, I have heard pro-life leaders pray for Carhart and plead that God would give him a change of heart. I have not heard any vicious personal attacks or expressions of hatred against him. Over and over again, I have heard it emphasized that our protests must be peaceful and demonstrate love and compassion. Both 40 Days for Life and the Summer of Mercy banned the use of signs with graphic images and encouraged us not to respond when heckled by pro-choice activists. At a rally a few months ago, we were interrupted by loud, disruptive chants by pro-choice activists claiming we "don't care if women die." We responded by spontaneously singing "Amazing Grace." Our pro-life protests are legally and constitutionally protected and have been conducted under the watchful eye of the Montgomery County Police Department. There is no link whatsoever between any of the groups currently involved these protests and the murder of George Tiller in Kansas, and there is absolutely no reason for the author to make this false association in his news story except raw prejudice against the pro-life position.

The story about Carhart that I linked to above is just as flagrant an example of propaganda. The author, Lena Sun, writes so glowingly of Carhart one might suppose she has an actual crush on him. He is described as a "grandfather and retired Air Force surgeon general" who "speaks softly" in an "understated manner." His "voice is weary" after a long, hard day of serving patients, but he remains "committed" to his important work. Unlike most abortionists who refuse to perform late-term abortions, Carhart is a brave man who doesn't care about "social stigma." (Insert the obligatory reference to the killing of George Tiller in Kansas and the association of the entire pro-life movement with his murder.) Many other doctors look up to him and "have asked to train with him." Despite persecution from those evil pro-life activists, Carhart's "tenacity" led him to work as an abortionist full time despite living in constant fear for his safety and his life. Still, their viciousness has created a stigma which makes him and other abortionists often feel "isolated," fearful of being "targeted by protestors." Often "you feel like you're alone in the world," quoth the good doctor, whose other interests include "adoption counseling" and pap smears for gay and transgendered people. (Insert obligatory reference to how he ONLY does late-term abortions "if the medical situation warrants.") Indeed, from this article it would be hard to understand how such an All-American Grandfather and All Around Good Guy could be considered remotely controversial, much less how he manages to attract hundreds of protestors outside his clinic week after week.

In fact there are some reasons why Carhart is controversial, although you'll never find out about them from reading The Washington Post. This pdf document from the http://kickoutcarhart.com/ website summarizes much of this information. Let's start with the fact that Carhart is under investigation by the Maryland Board of Physicians for making some very specific false claims on his application to practice in the state. He claimed he was an emergency room physician, but he hasn't had hospital rights in nearly 25 years! He also claimed he was a university professor even though this information too was more than a decade out-of-date, and omitted more than a decade of pertinent information related to his controversial practice of late-term abortions in Nebraska and Kansas. He is under criminal investigation back in his home state of Nebraska, based on sworn testimony by former employees of illegal activities occurring in his clinic. This testimony includes claims of "unlicensed employees... conducting medical tasks, illegal post-viability abortions, drug violations, financial malfeasance," the use of unsterilized and unclean medical instruments, and the failure of Carhart to follow even the most basic rules of personal hygience such as washing his hands between patients. After his Nebraska clinic partially burned, apparently due to unsafe storage practices, he tried to continue to perform abortions using a generator and extension cord until government authorities shut him down! Worst of all, in January 2005, a 19-year old girl with Down syndrome named Christin Gilbert died as a result of a botched 3rd-trimester abortion. Gilbert's death resulted from an infection that could have been avoided if she had received proper care. More information on this can be found here.

Let's cut to the chase. What does Carhart actually do that is so controversial? Well, he performs a nice humane procedure known as "Dilation and Evacuation" that involves sticking a needle into a woman's belly to inject poison into the "fetus." The woman goes back home for two days to wait for the "fetus" to die. Then she returns to the clinic, where the abortionist uses forceps to remove the arms and legs of the "fetus." Then the tiny skull of the "fetus" is collapsed so it can be easily removed. Finally the remaining remnants are suctioned out of the uterus. If the "fetus" is older, sometimes it will be delivered whole into a toilet rather than being dismembered. Carhart routinely does this procedure in the third trimester, and legally he can do it in Maryland up until the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the point of viability. Sometimes the "fetus" is still alive at the time the abortionist begins the pleasant process of dismemberment, and there is abundant evidence it can feel pain. Much more information about this, including photos, diagrams, and descriptions, can be found here. Fellow late-term abortionist Martin Haskell testified in court: "Typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure." He goes on to say that often the "fetus's" limbs are removed while the "fetus" is still alive. Carhart himself testified back in 2004 that frequently in the process of performing these late-term abortions the "fetus" was delivered whole and alive, but added that he thought "removing the brain contents eventually would [kill the baby]." Well, thank goodness for that.

As you can see, there are a lot of relevant facts about Dr. Carhart's history and abortion practices that paint a slightly different picture than The Washington Post profile of a kindly, soft-spoken grandfather who just wants to help women. It is disheartening for those of us fighting so hard against Carhart's brutal late-term abortion practice to read such biased reporting from the most influential media outlet in the area. With news organizations like The Washington Post shaping public opinion, it is hard to believe that anyone is willing to identify as pro-life.

I suppose all those pro-choice activists carrying signs saying "Dr. Carhart is my hero" and "We love Dr. Carhart" are perfectly within their legal rights. But what kind of a sick, twisted individual would choose a man like this to be his or her hero? The pro-choice community hides behind euphemisms and vague language like "women's rights," "choice," and "reproductive services." The thing they want to avoid at all costs is any description of what is actually happening in abortion. The truth is our greatest weapon, and their greatest enemy. And so we fight on, until the whole world knows the real truth about "late-term abortions," until justice is really administered in this country for ALL.

"Fight for the Children"

The recently-written song "Fight for the Children" was performed by hip-hop group Christcentric at my church on Sunday after the worship service. It is a powerful song and a sobering reminder of the gruesome nature of late-term abortion. You can check out the audio of the song on Christcentric's website here (listed on the left side under "New Music"). I don't think there's a YouTube video yet although that will be coming soon. Christcentric will be performing at the Summer of Mercy events next week.

Summer of Mercy 2.0

I wanted to post information about an upcoming local nine-day event co-sponsored by my church called "Summer of Mercy 2.0." The purpose of Summer of Mercy is for people who care about life to come together to fast, pray, and take a public stand against abortion, and in particular against the horrific form of late-term abortion practiced by Leroy Carhart in Germantown, MD. As noted earlier on this blog, Carhart kills viable babies up to ninth month of pregnancy. Today (July 20) and next Wednesday (July 27) are days of fasting and prayer in preparation for the event. Next Saturday, July 30, Summer of Mercy kicks off with a 7:00 pm rally at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg featuring a live ultrasound presentation and several speakers. There will be a second rally on July 31 with a youth emphasis. Then, from August 1 through August 5, there will be daily prayer at 8:00 am and noon and evening prayer rallies outside of Carhart's clinic. On August 6 there will be another meeting at Covenant Life Church at 7:00 pm. The event will close with a day of fasting on August 7 and a final big Cross 4 Life Prayer event outside of Carhart's clinic.

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman: "We sense a critical need to gather in Germantown to expose the horrific late-term abortion business of LeRoy Carhart, to prayerfully intervene on behalf of the babies that are scheduled to die, and to provide a peaceful yet powerful pro-life witness to the nation.... Now is the time for us to embrace the cross and walk in radical obedience unto the Lord. Our desire is to see a sovereign God powerfully move, shift history, bring awakening to our nation and end abortion."

My pastor, Charlie Baile: "We have seen many pro-life victories in this past year and are praying for a big tipping point for a Pro-Life America. Fetal pain laws are now being passed in many states due to the scientific proof that unborn children do indeed feel pain in the womb. As the technology of ultrasounds continues to improve, the heinous acts of abortion are being exposed. As post-abortive woman come out of the shadows and share their heartache and pain, it is plain for all to see that women know instinctively that killing their offspring is awful to live with. They need our prayers, Christian love, and forgiveness found at the cross of Jesus Christ.

"The pro-choice activists have sensed the growing swell of pro-life concern in Germantown, MD and they are putting all of their energies this summer into what they are calling the “Summer of Choice”. They are calling for the greatest pro-choice demonstration in history to come to Germantown and show their support for their hero, Dr. Leroy Carhart. They have borrowed our idea of a prayer walk and they are doing their own walk on Sunday afternoon, July 31st to raise monies for those who cannot afford their abortion. They are planning counter demonstrations during the Summer of Mercy dates. I want to appeal to you to come and be an advocate for the children at risk in the womb. 1/3 of our current generation has been killed off through this holocaust of abortion."

Germantown, MD, a mere 15 minutes from my home, has become Ground Zero in the battle over abortion in this country. Since this is happening in my backyard, I want to be involved in this event. To you my readers: I truly hope that if you live in the area, you consider attending at least some of the events or meetings. If you are unable to do so, at least you can stand with us in prayer for the countless victims of abortion (both mothers and babies) and for God to change hearts and minds on this crucial issue.

For more information, please check out the website at http://summerofmercy.com.

"The War Against Girls"

I read this fascinating article in The Wall Street Journal today entitled "The War Against Girls." The article is actually a review of the book Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl. Unnatural Selection details the systematic targeting of female babies for abortion in many countries of the world, most notably China and India. In China, largely due to forced abortions resulting from the country's One Child policy, 121 boys are born for every 100 girls, with the ratio topping out at over 150 in some towns. In India, the ratio is 1.12. Sadly, Hvistendahl concludes that approximately 163 million girls that would otherwise have been born based on biological averages have been aborted over the past three decades by parents seeking sons. Aside from the obvious tragedy of females being systematically targeted for destruction, Hvistendahl points out the problems inevitably resulting from such a significant gender imbalance, including increased social turmoil and violence and the booming of a global female underclass through prostitution, forced marriage, and mail-order-bride businesses. And institutions such as the United Nations and Planned Parenthood have been instrumental in promoting such sex-selective abortion overseas.

The reviewer points out that Hvistendahl is adamantly pro-abortion and expresses fear that the facts in her book will jeopardize legalized abortion; yet, despite her biases she has documented something very important and tragic that should cause all of us to wake up and see where the culture of abortion has taken us. Ironically, a practice touted as a basic woman's right has resulted in tremendous harm to -- indeed in the systematic extermination of -- women in many countries around the world. It turns out that women themselves are the greatest victims of abortion.

Jonathan Last sums up his review this way:

Despite the author's intentions, "Unnatural Selection" might be one of the most consequential books ever written in the campaign against abortion. It is aimed, like a heat-seeking missile, against the entire intellectual framework of "choice." For if "choice" is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against "gendercide." Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother's "mental health" requires it. Choice is choice. One Indian abortionist tells Ms. Hvistendahl: "I have patients who come and say 'I want to abort because if this baby is born it will be a Gemini, but I want a Libra.' "

This is where choice leads. This is where choice has already led. Ms. Hvistendahl may wish the matter otherwise, but there are only two alternatives: Restrict abortion or accept the slaughter of millions of baby girls and the calamities that are likely to come with it.

Correction to Yesterday's "Green Hoax" Post

After doing a little more research into my post from yesterday regarding electric cars, I discovered that there are some things I need to both correct and clarify. First, when I wrote that post, I was confused about whether the increased carbon emissions for manufacturing and disposing of electric vehicles were included in the overall calculation of carbon use over the vehicle lifetime. I originally thought they were not (based on some rather ambiguous language in one of the links I used), but in fact they were. Obviously, if I had taken more time to research the issue, I would have realized this. So I appreciate the commenter who pointed this out to me. His point was well taken that is always good to go directly to the source if possible.

So here are the baseline numbers, taken from the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership press release. The study found that from the beginning of manufacture to the end of disposal, an average mid-size gasoline car would be responsible for emitting 24 tonnes of CO2. An average mid-size electric car would be responsible for emitting 19 tonnes of CO2. This is, of course, a carbon emissions savings, but not one I would consider to be all that significant given the hype surrounding electric cars.

However, there is more to the story than just these overall numbers. When you read the full report issued by the LCVP, you find that if you factor in a replacement battery for an electric car, total carbon emissions for the electric car go up significantly to 23 tonnes of CO2, nearly identical to that of a conventional gasoline car. These numbers were the ones used by the two articles to which I originally linked as a basis for the argument that electric cars have little advantage in terms of carbon emissions. Will most electric cars need a second battery after a few years? This has been a problem with electric cars to date. The LCVP argues that in a few years the technology for electric car batteries will have improved enough that replacement batteries will not be necessary. But obviously, that organization is a cheerleader for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions, so it's hard to know who to believe.

There's another thing to consider too. Electric cars, at least so far, are not suitable for long trips because their batteries must be recharged frequently. They are really only feasible for short mileage commutes. Therefore, it is likely that many of them will not end up accumulating a very great amount of mileage over their useful life. This reduces their apparent energy savings. Remember, close to 50% of their total carbon emissions occur at the beginning of their life cycle, during manufacture. They must be driven 80,000 miles just to break even with gasoline cars on total carbon emissions. It is entirely possible that many of them will not pass the 80,000 mileage mark in their lifetime, and therefore will prove to be LESS green than conventional vehicles. This point, coupled with the possible necessity of replacement batteries, helps to explain why the articles I originally linked to can claim that electric cars may be less green than gasoline cars. LCVP's study found that electric vehicles are only marginally greener than gasoline cars, and when you include other factors like the ones I have mentioned which were not factored into LCVP's study, electric cars may not even be greener at all.

So yes, I was confused about some facts in my original post. And I concede that my language about "green hoaxes" was a little over the top. I have no doubt that most proponents of electric cars are sincerely trying to help the environment and are not deliberately trying to pull the wool over consumers' eyes. However, I still think it is far from clear that electric cars will reduce carbon emissions very significantly. And so far, the evidence shows they are both inferior to gasoline cars for many purposes and also significantly more costly. Will the technology improve? Doubtless, but the technology used in the manufacture of gasoline cars is also improving. Furthermore, the whole premise behind radical reductions in carbon emissions is the idea that our emissions are causing global warming. I think it is far from clear that global warming is being caused by man-made activities at all, and highly doubtful that any reduction in carbon emissions will have an impact on global temperatures. So in my mind, the government is foolish to pour millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain to subsidize electric cars. And I stand by my original point about the environmentalist movement as well. I disagree with their values and believe their track record has been very poor.

Another Green Hoax

A new study on electric cars has come out by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, an organization jointly funded by Britain's government and automobile industry. Its findings? Electric cars actually are likely to produce HIGHER CO2 emissions over their lifetime than gasoline cars. The study found that mid-size electric cars produce only slightly less CO2 than their mid-size gasoline counterparts during their lifetime. This is not near enough to make up for the fact that it takes 50% MORE energy to manufacture electric cars in the first place and also 50% MORE energy to dispose of them. Not to mention the fact that most electric cars need a battery replacement after a few years (more carbon emissions!), and that some of the materials needed to manufacture the batteries are only available from countries like China and are difficult to dispose of in an environmentally safe way. And then there's the point that most electric cars are not suitable for long trips because they only drive a short distance on a single charge.

So tell me again: why is our government spending massive amounts of money subsidizing the electric car industry and incentivizing people to buy these very expensive cars?

The environmentalist movement in this country has gotten pretty extreme. Some of their causes, such as banning DDT worldwide and trying to stop industrialization in Third World countries, have left people in extreme poverty and even resulted in loss of life. Environmentalism is more than just a cause – it’s a religion for a lot of people. They worship Mother Earth, which they believe is eternal and is responsible for creating all life through the process of naturalistic evolution. For them, Mother Earth must be preserved in an untouched, pristine condition, no matter how many people must suffer as a consequence. Thus, they pass legislation that costs thousands of loggers their jobs because somewhere deep in the woods there may be a spotted owl somewhere that might have its habitat disrupted. Environmentalist concern for some obscure endangered species caused California to shut off the water supply to the central valley area of the state, one of the most fertile agricultural areas in the country, turning it into a dust bowl and costing thousands of farmers their livelihoods. Environmentalists are obsessed with global warming and are pushing for massive regulation to prevent it that will destroy industry and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs (the Kyoto Treaty for example), even though there is little or no evidence that human activity is causing global warming and even less evidence that scaling back on our activity will prevent it from occurring. (And recent Climategate email leaks have shown how much deception is present in the global warming alarmist camp.) Environmentalists are obsessed with the evils of fossil fuels and want to replace them with “renewable” energy sources, even though there are no such alternative energy sources that can come close to matching the usefulness and productivity of fossil fuels. I have no problem with researching to find better alternative energy sources, but in the meantime we have huge untapped supplies of fossil fuels that will sustain us for hundreds of years. Fossil fuels created the economic productivity that has given us so much wealth. I guess the earth was more pristine back in the days of the cavemen, but I don’t want to go back to that lifestyle just for the sake of being green. Environmentalists are obsessed with population growth and want to dramatically reduce the earth’s population. I watched a documentary on this, and in fact the earth is not overpopulated at all and dramatic reductions in the population would cause tremendous economic harm to our country and our world (and already has contributed to a lot of Japan and Europe’s economic problems).

That doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the environment and think we should just trash it. I don’t worship the earth and I don’t believe I owe my existence to it, but I still believe it is the good creation of God and as such we should seek to take care of it and protect it. A lot of environmental legislation from earlier in our history was good and necessary. It is good that companies are no longer allowed to dump raw sewage into the river. It is generally good that we are recycling. It is good that factories can’t pour out dangerous pollutants unrestricted. It is good that companies are responsible to clean up environmental damage they cause. It is good that littering is a crime. It is good that there are rules preventing the destruction of forests and wetlands. It is good that our national park system is preserving our most special natural landscapes for generations to come. I support all of those things and what they have done to preserve our environment. But the modern environmentalist movement has gone far beyond simple good stewardship and conservation. Now they want to regulate how much water I can have in my toilet and what kind of light bulbs I can use and how much fuel my auto uses. I think that the environmental movement cares more about a pristine earth than about the lives of people, and that's wrong.

I'm sick of all the group think and distortions when it comes to the environment. I want to protect the environment, but I refuse to buy into all the fashionable ideas currently on the market. I want our government to show the same concern for the truth and the facts.

Jay Nordlinger Rocks!

The main point of this blog post is simply to say that if you have never read Jay Nordlinger's weekly Impromptus column on National Review Online, you have been missing out on a treat. Unlike many political pundits on both the left and the right, Nordlinger is a delight to read, never coming across as bitter, harsh, or angry. Every time I read him, I am struck by the paradox in his writing. Here is a man with tremendous knowledge of contemporary politics, strong conservative beliefs, and an impressive awareness of American history, especially American political history. He has been covering all the important players in Washington for decades and has forgotten more about politics than most people will ever know. And yet, it is so obvious from his writing that he doesn't let politics consume him. He loves life in all of its variety, quite apart from politics, and freely opines on a broad range of topics in his Impromptus column, from grammar to music to the arts to geography to culture. He is passionate about international human rights. His writing style is conversational. You can't read a column of his without concluding that this is a genuinely happy person who looks at the world in an eminently level-headed, commonsense sort of way. Even when he criticizes others, he generally does so in an indirect and gentle sort of way. (Wish I were better at doing that!) One of my favorite things that he does is jot down his quick thoughts and reactions to major speeches, debates, etc. They are always well worth reading.

Anyway, I thought his column this week was especially good. He has some great thoughts on the left's reaction to the Anthony Weiner scandal. Read it here. And then click on the "Archive" button at the top of the page and read all the other Imprompuses you've missed!

Radical Environmentalism Is Destroying California

Those who think the modern environmentalist movement is harmless should read this excellent post on Forbes magazine's blog entitled "California's Green Jihad" by Joel Kotkin. Kotkin explains how green policies have made California the least business-friendly state in the nation, given it the second-worst unemployment rate in the nation (higher even than Michigan's), and driven away hundreds of thousands of jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, energy, and technology.

Memorial Day Is a Day to Celebrate America

Monday was Memorial Day. For most of us, it is a day to celebrate America and remember the sacrifices made by our armed forces on behalf of our country and our freedoms. In particular, it is a day to honor our fallen heroes. Apparently, other people - and not just lefties - see Memorial Day as a golden opportunity to spew hate against our military and our country and accuse our troops of mass murder of innocent civilians. Someone sent me this delightful article from the libertarian site LewRockwell.com entitled "An Open Letter to the Troops: You're Not Defending Our Freedoms."

I am not going to respond in detail to every point in the article, partly because I don't think the author deserves that much respect, and partly because I don't have the time. But I have a few basic observations in response.

1. The timing of the article speaks volumes. I think it shows real disrespect to all Americans who have lost family members or friends in war to write such an insulting attack on our military on a day set aside to remember and honor those fallen soldiers. Whatever your opinions regarding recent American military operations, those soldiers died courageously in the service of our country and deserve our respect, as do their families who sacrificed so much. Further, the article shows real disrespect to our country. Memorial Day is a national day of remembrance, and honors fallen heroes throughout our history, including those who died in wars that presumably even the author would recognize as legitimate. Apparently the author feels the need to ignore and disrespect our entire national history simply to make his current political point about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. The language used in the article speaks volumes. Over and over again, the author uses words like the following to describe our country, its military, and its policies: occupation, aggressor, maimed, tortured, cruel, brutal, crimes, killing innocent people, empire, kangaroo courts, etc. This is the language we use to describe evil. One could be forgiven for thinking he was recounting the history of Nazi Germany or the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, insteading talking about America. He repeatedly says that the U.S. created the terrorists by our policies. Apparently he believes, like Obama's infamous pastor Jeremiah Wright, that the attacks of 9/11 were simply America's "chickens coming home to roost." It is very clear that this is not about policy differences regarding the War in Iraq. In fact, he even says that the U.S. has been following these same policies for a long time -- long before 9/11. The author is writing this article because he despises what America stands for. He thinks -- indeed he says! -- that we are an evil empire that goes around slaughtering innocent people and conquering and exploiting weaker countries for our own financial gain and to enhance our global power. In his twisted mind, the bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins of the world are the freedom-fighters trying to defend themselves against an evil and powerful aggressor known as the United States. Our country's alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel have turned kindly, peace-loving moms and dads into crazed terrorists who behead American journalists on camera and fly planes into tall buildings filled with women and children.

3. At every turn, the author does whatever he has to do to paint the U.S. in the worst light possible, ignoring or distorting any facts that might stand in his way. He keeps saying over and over again that we killed many innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the War in Iraq, he ignores the fact that our military action was based on reports from intelligence agencies of our country and other countries that stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that he intended to use against his neighbors or sell to terrorists. This intelligence turned out to be badly wrong, but it was believed by almost all of our political leaders at the time. (By the way, we never provided Iraq with WMD's, as the author claims, merely conventional weapons.) He ignores the fact that our intelligence had uncovered meetings between Hussein and top Al-Qaeda operatives. He ignores the fact that we tried hard to work through the U.N. to avoid military conflict, and that war only came after 17 U.N. resolutions that were disregarded by Hussein and after weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for years. He ignores the fact that Hussein was a brutal dictator whose torture chambers (real torture, as opposed the tough interrogations methods that the author loosely calls "torture") were notorious and who kept his people in fear. He ignores the fact that the Iraqi people welcomed us as liberators when we initially invaded the country, and that they tried and sentenced Hussein to death for his crimes. He ignores the fact that the Iraq people welcomed the new democracy set up by the U.S. and turned out to vote numerous times in large numbers despite threats against their lives. He ignores the fact that most of the civilian casualties in Iraq were not caused by our troops but by the insurgency, which was largely made up of terrorist fighters pouring into Iraq from other terrorist-supporting countries like Iran and Syria to undermine the young Iraqi democracy. He ignores the fact that the Taliban was sympathetic with and supportive of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda at every turn and refused to stop its cooperation with Al-Qaeda even after 9/11. He ignores the fact that the Taliban was a brutal totalitarian regime that sentenced people to have their limbs chopped off for simple theft and women to be gang-raped for crimes like allowing their face to be seen in public. He ignores the fact that our military followed careful rules of engagement in both Iraq and Afghanistan in which they targeted only known terrorists and tried to avoid injuring innocent civilians whenever possible. (In fact, I think our rules of engagement were too strict and caused our war effort to suffer in both countries.) He ignores the fact that those terrorists deliberately embedded themselves among innocent civilians in order to maximize civilian casualties to turn public opinion against the U.S. He ignores the fact that our "occupation" of Iraq lasted only long enough to ensure the Iraqi democracy was somewhat stable and capable of protecting itself and that all combat troops have now withdrawn from the country. He ignores the fact that we have did not exploit Iraq for financial gain and did not steal their oil for ourselves. And these facts are just the tip of the iceberg -- just the ones that come to my mind at first glance. Many, many more could be mentioned.

Oh yes. Here's a big fact that somehow also failed to make it into that author's article. Our Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, the great enemy of our country who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks against Americans. There is no doubt that this, coupled with the capture or killing of many other top Al-Qaeda operatives since 9/11 by our troops, has made us much safer and has been a big reason why we have not had another major attack on our soil since 9/11. Our soldiers risked -- and in some cases forfeited -- their lives to achieve these victories against the people who attacked our country and to keep us free and secure. Maybe that author, like his hero Ron Paul, is upset that we tracked down and killed the terrorist who murdered thousands of our citizens in cold blood without reading him his Miranda rights.

The point of listing out all these facts is not to say that the U.S. hasn't made mistakes in prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have made some big mistakes. And our military made some big mistakes, like Abu Ghraib. But there is a big difference between saying we made mistakes and saying that we are an evil empire that attacks other countries for no reason to exploit them for financial gain and kill innocent civilians. I can respect someone who argues that the War in Iraq was unnecessary for our national defense, or was prosecuted in an incompetent way. I cannot respect someone who argues that the U.S. is an evil imperialist empire.

4. The author clearly thinks there should be no attempt to defend against terrorists at home either. He doesn't like the Patriot Act or tough interrogation techniques (what he calls "torture") or detaining terrorists or military tribunals or Guantanamo Bay. After all, in his view, terrorists don't really exist -- they're just artificially manufactured by our imperialistic policies. Apparently his idea is to let all the terrorists go (detaining them is illegal!) and make sure we don't ever do anything they don't like again. Whatever they demand from us, we just do it to make sure we don't make them upset. We can't support Israel because they don't like that. We can't have troops anywhere in the Middle East because they don't like that. We don't dare have a working relationship with any Middle East dictatorship because they don't like that. We can't publish cartoons that make fun of Mohammed because they don't like that. That's probably how the author advises his kids to deal with bullies too. Just be nice to them and they won't pick on you. What kind of a pathetic way is this to carry out foreign policy?

All right. I'm done fighting with people who hate America. They can go live with their freedom-loving Al-Qaeda friends in the Middle East, for all I care. Memorial Day is more than just a day off work or an occasion for a cookout. It is the day when we remember our brave men and women in uniform who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of their country and its liberties. Despite many present problems and future challenges, America continues to offer its citizens a level of individual political and religious freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and justice virtually unmatched anywhere else on earth, both now and throughout history. We owe these blessings first and foremost to God, who graciously gave us life and sovereignly placed us in such a great country. But secondarily, we owe these blessings to our country's military heroes -- leaders and soldiers -- who fought to win us our independence in the first place and who risked their lives throughout our history to protect our soil from foreign attack and to defeat the enemies of freedom. Over more than two centuries, they have suffered hardship and danger on the battlefield and in the trenches so we could enjoy comfort and peace; hundreds of thousands of them died so that we can live in freedom. Such freedom was purchased at great cost to them, and at the very least, we owe them remembrance and honor. And we owe, at the very least, gratitude and support to all past and current members of our military and their families.

Most of America's wars, first against English rule and then later against the global threats of Nazism, fascism, Communism, and radical Islam, have been first and foremost to protect our country from actual or imminent threats by tyrannical movements and governments. A few of our wars (such as the wars in Kosovo and Libya, for example) have seemed more motivated by humanitarian considerations than imminent national security threats. There is honest disagreement about whether every war America has fought has been necessary or worth the cost, and certainly some wars such as Vietnam were executed very poorly. But I think there can be no honest disagreement that the wars America has fought, without exception, have been fought on behalf of freedom and democracy and to make the world a safer, more peaceful, and better place. Unlike most other great nations and empires throughout history, our wars have not been wars of conquest or aggression. They have been intended to free others, not to enslave them.

I believe few institutions have done more good for the world than the U.S. military. A non-exhaustive list of nations who owe their present freedom to the U.S. military includes England, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Grenada, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Iraq. Our soldiers have died to protect us and keep us free, but have also died to bring peace and freedom around the world.

What can we do to honor the memory of our fallen heroes and their sacrifice for us? We can donate our money and efforts to support organizations that help veterans and their families -- Hugh Hewitt provides some helpful links here. We can express our thanks to those who are currently serving or those who have served in the past and their families. We can vote for politicians who respect our military and want to keep it strong instead of using it as a showcase for political correctness. We can stand up to the militant left and the radical libertarian right which hate our military and undermine our country's wars at every opportunity. Most of all, we can thank God for the freedoms we have and use them to honor Him and serve others.

Here is another great link by Victor Davis Hanson that honors our military on Memorial Day.

Finally, the words to the song "The Other Little Soldier" by Josh Gracin, which reminds us just how great our soldiers' sacrifice is:

He used to play in Daddy's uniform
With the stripes across the sleeve,
And he knew when he was all grown up
What he was gonna be.
He used to like to ambush
Every careless cat or dog
That had the nerve to cross the
Battle lines that he had drawn.

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war

The phone rang in the middle of the night
When they called his dad to go,
Kissed him and his mom goodbye,
He said, "God, I love you both!
Now I know that it's a lot to ask
Of such a little man
But hold the fort and I'll be home
As quickly as I can."

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war

A wall could not begin to hold
The names of all the kids
Who gave the greatest sacrifice
That any child could give

It was the first time he'd ever seen
A flag from up that close,
And he watched them as they folded it
So careful and so slow;
As they gave it to his mother
He knew what he should do:
He raised his little hand
And gave his dad one last salute.

And even though he didn't know
What his dad was fighting for,
He was proud to be the other little soldier
In this war.

May God bless America and our troops, today and always!

Department of Injustice

This post by Ed Whelan on National Review's Bench Memos blog caught my attention. We all know that Eric Holder's Justice Department is refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. What is also coming out is that Holder's Justice Department is also refusing to enforce DOMA as existing law. Whelan gives one clear example of this in his post, and also links to a longer article that provides much more detailed evidence and analysis of the Justice Department's actions.

This is par for the course for Holder's Justice Department. A Washington Times editorial from September 2010 explained how the DOJ is refusing to enforce federal laws that require states to purge their voting rolls of ineligible voters. Whistleblower J. Christian Adams recounted how a top official from the DOJ informed her staff that the department had no interest in enforcing those laws (presumably since voter fraud works to the Democrat's political advantage). Then there is this column by Andrew McCarthy on National Review, which recounts the testimony of another whistleblower, Christopher Coates, before the Civil Rights Commission. Coates described how the DOJ's dropping of all charges in the Philadelphia Black Panthers voter intimidation case, shocking as it was, was merely the tip of the iceberg and that at Holder's (and Obama's) direction, the DOJ was consistently enforcing civil rights laws in a racially discriminatory manner. As McCarthy pointed out, it is more than just politicization of the Justice Department - it is the criminalization of the Justice Department.

Clearly, President Obama and his buddy Eric Holder have no interest in enforcing laws they don't like. They will stop at nothing, including ignoring or violating the laws and Constitution of the U.S., in order to achieve their political and ideological goals. Their lawless tyranny must be stopped in November 2012, or our country may never recover.

Obama Politicizes Government Contracts

I was appalled -- but not surprised -- when I read this article from The Wall Street Journal yesterday. The gist of it is that Obama is about to sign an executive order reversing a 70-year-old government policy. This new order will require all private companies and their officers to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts.

This is called using the power of the government to silence your political opponents. Companies have two choices: donate to Republicans (or conservative third-party groups) and lose out on all government contracts, or protect their livelihoods and don't give any money to Republican candidates. Oh yeah, and guess who doesn't have to disclose their donations? That's right. Unions, which donate overwhelmingly to Democrats.

Thanks to Obama, no longer will we have a federal contract system based on best value and best quality. Now politics will decide who gets what contract. That may be good for Obama's re-election campaign, but it's not very good for our country.

It is increasingly difficult for me to understand how someone who genuinely cares about the future of our country can support this radical leftist, this partisan hack who now occupies the White House.

"Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but tax season is now over and I hope to start posting regularly again now that I have some free time! At the moment I am working on a long article on the topic of gay marriage which I hope to have ready to post in the next week or two.

In the meantime, I wanted to share a great link to an article by Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online entitled "Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No." McCarthy exposes the hypocrisy of the law firm King & Spalding, which has willingly defended all sorts of the vilest people from terrorists to murderers and rapists, but is now refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. The same is true of Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, who presides over a Justice Department whose lawyers have willingly volunteered their time to assist Al-Qaeda terrorists but refuse to defend DOMA, a law passed by large bipartisan Congressional majorities a mere 15 years ago, signed by President Clinton, and supported by a majority of the American people.

Of course, the greatest hypocrisy of all comes from gay rights activists, led by the Human Rights Campaign, who used threats and intimidation to get King & Spalding to drop their legal defense of DOMA. For more on these threats see this article from The Weekly Standard's website. The gay rights lobby claims to stand for tolerance, understanding, and diversity of ideas. Except they have no tolerance for anyone who stands in their way. Their goal is to ensure that DOMA gets no reasonable defense in court whatsoever, and they will do whatever it takes to silence their opponents.

Germantown Press Conference

Here is the link to the press release regarding the state medical board's investigation into abortionist Leroy Carhart. There was a press conference and prayer vigil in Germantown this morning.

Germantown clinic update

Quite a bit has been happening lately in Germantown! The Maryland Coalition for Life is now leasing an office space directly across from abortionist Leroy Carhart's clinic. See pictures here. The space is intended to be a Resource and Referral Center for both undecided and post-abortive women. The center will be working with and referring women to the Rockville and Shady Grove Pregancy Centers. Training for receptionists is being held this coming Sunday.

40 Days for Life is continuing to ensure a peaceful and prayerful pro-life presence outside the abortion clinic. Apparently Leroy Carhart has now begun performing abortions on Sunday evenings, possibly to avoid the constant pro-life presence that 40 Days for Life has provided. Ironically (or Providentially), his procedures last Sunday evening just "happened" to coincide with the candlelight vigil celebrating the mid-way point of 40 Days for Life! There will be another candlelight vigil this coming Sunday from 8pm to midnight.

Here is a Gazette article about the new rental space. Given the Gazette's usual slanted coverage, I have been impressed with the balance I have seen in their past couple articles on the abortion debate in Germantown. ABC Channel 7 news also covered the story (you'll see two of my pastors at the beginning of the video). I understand the interviewer was surprised at their inability to find anyone from the office park, from Carhart's office, or from NARAL to interview for the pro-abortion perspective on their story (though there was a statement from a national abortion organization in the coverage). Donations are being accepted here to pay for the expenses of running the Resource and Referral Center in Germantown.

There is much more going on surrounding this issue, including legislation in Annapolis, than I can go into at the moment. I am amazed at the response to Carhart's move to Germantown in December, and that this movement continues to build momentum. There are so many wonderful people behind this effort to save the lives of the unborn. May God continue to work and be glorified through all of those involved in this debate, in their words, actions and presence.

Libya

We do not mean to belittle what is happening and has happened in Japan and Libya. However "life happens" outside the blogosphere and although I do not have time for a detailed post on either, I do want to share an opinion piece I read today.

As sad and horrible as it is to see what is happening in Libya lately, I do not think US military action is apropriate. It is particularly inapropriate when it is not decided upon by our own Congress, but by the United Nations and the President.

The current poll on the National Review online home page is: "The West is now committed to taking military action in Libya. This development is..." 34% chose "Mistake" and 66% chose "Welcome." Obviously this is not a very scientific poll, but it is suggestive (especially at a Conservative publication).

Here is an Andrew McCarthy piece from National Review Online about the problems with the way President Obama is proceeding. It makes me sick enough to think of US involvement in another war, however it is even worse when that war has not been sanctioned by Congress. To quote McCarthy: "In the Libya situation, our constitutional system calls for seeking a congressional authorization of military force. Even if that weren’t so, it is terrible policy to go to war without public support."

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

I read a couple of humorous articles on National Review that I wanted to share with you. One is a short blog post about San Francisco's sewer woes. It seems the city has been using "environmentally friendly" low-flow toilets that have caused sludge to build up inside the sewer pipes. Not surprisingly, this has created a horrible stench throughout the city that has forced its government to spend tens of millions over the past few years to try to upgrade the sewer system. Now the city wants to pump bleach into the sewers to further combat the smell. But of course, the very environmentalists whose policies caused the problem in the first place are upset about the bleach as well. Ah San Francisco. Is it really worth it to have your city inundated with poop just to "save" a few gallons of water (a completely renewable resource, by the way)?

The other is an even more humorous article about more destructive consequences of the radical environmental movement. The article is definitely worth reading for the humor alone, but here's an executive summary. Back in the early 1990's, the environmental movement led the charge to prohibit logging in many millions of acres of forests in Oregon and Washington to protect the habitat of the endangered spotted owl. This devastated the economy of many towns in the region and caused 30,000 loggers to lose their jobs. Now, a couple of decades later, it turns out that the spotted owl continues to die off, and the reason has little to do with logging. It seems the culprit is the barred owl, a rival species that is taking over the spotted owl's habitat. But the ever resourceful environmentalists have a new plan. Now they want to set up in the forest, play owl calls over loudspeakers, and shoot barred owls when they come in response to the owl calls. How do you feel about your tax dollars possibly financing the killing of one owl species to save another? And when are the loggers going to get an apology from the government for getting their jobs taken and their lives ruined based on junk science?

And how many other jobs are being lost as a result of junk science? Think "global warming" and "cap-and-trade." I think it's safe to say the environmental movement in this country has not learned its lesson.

Sharia Law Comes to America

I first heard this story on the radio yesterday coming home from work, and it shocked me. The city of Dearborn, Michigan is arresting and jailing Christians for peacefully speaking to Muslims about Christianity and handing out Bibles in public areas. (For those who don't know, Dearborn and other surrounding towns are home to the largest concentration of Muslims in the U.S.) Several of the arrests were caught on video so there is clear evidence that the Christians were not "disturbing the peace" as the police claim. By contrast, after the arrests a crowd of Muslims gathered around and were shouting profanities and violent epithets -- yet none of them were arrested for "disturbing the peace." In one case, the missionaries, including an 18-year-old girl, were thrown in jail overnight. In another, the missionaries were actually brought to trial, but after jurors saw the video of the incident they immediately acquitted them of any wrongdoing. Even after their acquittal, the mayor and other city officials continued to publicly attack them. The full story is here on the website of the Thomas More Law Center, which is bringing a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of these missionaries.

Yes, folks, this is America. We are used to hearing about people arrested and jailed for their faith in other countries. But who would have thought it could actually happen here in America? Essentially the city of Dearborn is unofficially enforcing Sharia law, which prohibits people of any other religion from attempting to proselytize Muslims. And in the process, it is trampling on people's constitutional first amendment rights. Why are city officials doing this? I think it's obvious they are doing this because either they feel intimidated by or they want to curry favor with the large Muslim population in their community, which obviously supports their actions.

We all know that most if not all Islamic countries are governed by repressive regimes that deny even the most basic civil rights to their citizens, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. What a lot of Americans don't realize is that many Muslims who are living in Western countries are fighting hard against freedom of speech and religion as well. In Europe, many Muslim communities have become islands unto themselves where national laws are not enforced and where the police are afraid to go. Muslims have been rallying in the streets in England and other countries, demanding the adoption of Sharia law. (Sharia law, for those who don't know, is the strict Muslim law code that calls for the utter subjugation of women, draconian punishments for moral violations such as homosexuality or adultery, and denies freedom of speech or religion.) Most people assume Sharia law can't happen in America, but the Dearborn incident demonstrates that it absolutely can if we do not remain vigilent. Kudos to organizations like the Thomas More Law Center that are exposing these incidents.

It's important for all Americans to understand that Sharia law and Muslims who support Sharia law stand for something that is antithetical to our country's values and laws -- in fact they are profoundly hostile to our values. Those who support Sharia law are enemies of freedom and of America's way of life, and we must not allow them to get even the slightest toehold in our country, as they have in many other Western countries. As the famous quote says, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Walk for Choice

Abortion supporters are protesting the House's attempts to defund Planned Parenthood by holding "Walks for Choice" accross the country on Saturday, February 26. There will be a prayer vigil in Annapolis, where one of these walks is being held, and I would imagine similar pro-life events will be held elsewhere.

What strikes me is the logo for this event (above). The words "We have a voice. We have a choice." appear to me to contradict the image of the faceless woman. The pro-abortion crowd claims that they are the ones who truly care about women and that they are standing up for them and for their rights. However, to me this image of a generic woman with only words for a face implies that individual women with individual personalities and individual needs don't really matter to them, only that they stand for a "woman's right to choose." It saddens me how many women buy into these lies.

Now Who's the Party of No?

You know, I have at times been critical of the Republican Party. I believe in conservative ideals, but I have often thought Republicans tend to be very spineless and weak in fighting for them. I know at one point on this blog I even urged my readers not to give money to the Republican National Committee because of their habit of giving big bucks to some very liberal Republican candidates. I have also said that I am not necessarily pro-Republican; merely (fiercely) anti-Democrat.

However, I have to say that I have been very encouraged lately about what I am seeing from Republican officials around the country. Many of them are showing a lot more leadership and backbone than I expected to see. The Republican governors, especially, are doing both their states and their party proud. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was first elected at the end of 2009, I expected him to be a typical Northeastern liberal Republican squish. Boy, was I wrong! He has been fierce in taking on the unions and the political interest groups and fighting to get New Jersey back on a solid financial footing. Gov. Bob McDonnell has also done a great deal in only a little over a year to balance Virginia's budget and bring more jobs to his state. Gov. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania is cracking down on abortion clinics in the state that violate health & safety codes. Not only did he succeed in exposing the disgusting & murderous activities going on in Kermit Gosnell's "abortion clinic" in Philadelphia, but he has also fired numerous state employees who were responsible for looking the other way for years while these violations occurred. Now, I am watching as Gov. Scott Walker and the courageous Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature take on the deeply entrenched public employee unions in the state in order to balance the state's budget. Despite intense pressure, angry mobs, and threats of violence, they are standing tall on their principles and refusing to back down. Other Republican governors are also standing up to the money-hungry unions, including Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

Then there is the newly-elected GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. They too are courageously standing up to the President. They recently passed a package with $61 billion in discretionary domestic spending cuts, including de-funding Planned Parenthood. Granted, it's small compared to the overall deficit, but at least it's a start -- a start staunchly opposed by the Democrats who want no cuts at all. John Boehner and the Republican leadership in the House have also announced that they intend to take on entitlement reform in their budget coming out in April. This is a somewhat risky thing to do, especially since the President wants to do nothing but use entitlements as a political football to get re-elected -- but it is the right thing to do. It is encouraging to see this new class of lawmakers willing to take on such an important issue that lawmakers have cravenly avoided for decades.

Who knows how everything will happen in the end. Maybe the Republicans will end up caving in the end. Maybe the Democrats will effectively demagogue the spending cuts to worm their way back into power in Congress. But for now, we have every reason to be encouraged at this new generation of Republican leaders. They seem to have principles, and they seem to be willing to fight for those principles. We should pray for them and support them in any way we can. And those "conservative" critics who claim there is "no difference between the two parties" and "all politicians are equally corrupt" should be ashamed of themselves. There is a very clear difference between the parties, and people who think that it doesn't matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat are not paying attention to what's happening out there.

Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, the Democrats do not stand for change. Public employees are not screaming epithets against the Wisconsin governor in the streets because they support change. They are reactionaries trying to defend a failed system that is tetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Democrats have no solutions to our looming financial crisis and our out-of-control deficit spending. I have known for a long time they are cowards -- I saw how they demagogued Bush's sincere attempt at Social Security reform back in 2005. What I have recently come to realize is that many Republicans actually do stand for change. Many of them are sincere about wanting to solve our deficit crisis and tackle entitlement reform. Many of them are willing to take risks and stand up to powerful & corrupt interests to do what's right. I don't put my trust in politicians, but I will say that I've rarely been prouder to be a Republican.

For a great article on this contrast between the parties, check out this column by Charles Krauthammer.