Another Perspective

  Yes, I copied this from The American Spectator.  

I listened to a radio show, Janet Parshall, last week I believe, on this very subject.  You must know that I hold Janet Parshall in the highest regard and think that her show "In the Market Place" is the best.  I was also very much swayed by her and her guest's argument for the SCOTUS decision on the Westboro case.  I also want to mention that I find that group's philosophy and actions despicable.  There is no honor, truth or honesty within their ranks as they only seek to promote disharmony that will result in their filing lawsuits for the primary purpose of funding their nefarious activities.

That being said, I present this because it has convinced me that Justice Samuel Alito, although being the lone dissenter, is in reality the only one that is right.  This is a person who has gained my wholehearted respect and admiration.  This is truly a patriot and a person who has "man-ed up" and wrote an opinion that is full of truth in an era that has fully rejected it, irrespective of the wrath of opinion that may be launched against him.

 

Another Perspective

Justice Alito Was Right

By William Murchison on 3.9.11 @ 6:09AM

It fell to Justice Samuel Alito the other day to remind Americans how far their culture of liberation has veered from common sense and appreciation of the small decencies that undergird civilization.
On a question of "free speech" -- at its center a claimed right to begrime with taunts and insults the funeral of a U.S. Marine -- the four members of the U.S. Supreme Court's liberal-permissivist bloc weren't likely to find against the jeer leaders. It was the conservative bloc whose behavior startled. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas went along with the permissivists, in the name of "robust, uninhibited, and wide-open" debate. As if the honored word "debate" applied to placards exhorting onlookers to "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Against his eight colleagues, Sam Alito stood in lonely, honorable dissent. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate," he wrote, "is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." Alito saw no free speech deprivation in the judgment a district court had levied against the traveling freak show known as Westboro Baptist Church, in Kansas: a gang keener on disrupting military funerals than on preaching the redemptive love of Jesus.
The picketers could have picketed almost anywhere in America, said Alito. Why at the church where the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was being held? From the claim of free speech rights there was no logical pathway to the intentional infliction of "severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity.'"
Among the judicial precedents Alito noted was a 1942 case in which the high court called attention to "the social interest in order and morality." That was of course back when American culture accorded order and morality a higher seat in national proceedings than was due trash-talking and narcissistic chest-thumping. The debasement of traditional norms of respect and civility, from the 1960s forward, accompanied cultural grants of latitude to do anything that resembled self-expression: burn a U.S. flag, swear on the air, publish pornography, insult or howl down a speaker.
Daniel Webster crying "Liberty and Union, now and forever," the Westboro wackos proclaiming, at military funerals, God's hatred of "fags" -- both are the same, it seems. Except they aren't. Not according to right reason they aren't.
I trust, after 47 years in the media, teaching and talking and writing, I needn't protest my devotion to "freedom of speech, or of the press," as the Founding Fathers referred to it. I am bound to add that free speech obtained its dignity and cultural warrant through the importance that earlier generations attributed to that "robust" debate praised by the court's 8-1 majority. That "God Hates Dead Soldiers" should be considered an idea on the same plane as "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" is further evidence that modern society barely knows up from down.
When I taught journalism at a major university, I thrust Milton's "Areopagitica" in my students' faces. Here! Look! This is what free speech is about -- the quest for Truth! "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties," Milton had written. Yes! Yes!
Accordingly, we bind ourselves to put up with a fair amount of nonsense -- but not all nonsense, because no morally healthy society accords unlimited living space to the ugly, the twisted, the debased. Perhaps our own society just doesn't know anymore, due in part to Supreme Court tutelage, what real debasement looks like. We might get up a good debate on that topic, assuming the Westboro wackos and their pious defenders could be kept at bay.
Mr. Murchison is completing a biography of the founding father John Dickinson. An earlier version of this column appeared in the Dallas Morning News.

Education In America - Straight from Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" -Item 10 "

This was copied from Poor Richards blog in its entirety.  Except for the end statements after the link.


http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/10/test.html

The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile

It's no secret that the US educational system doesn't do a very good job. Like clockwork, studies show that America's schoolkids lag behind their peers in pretty much every industrialized nation. We hear shocking statistics about the percentage of high-school seniors who can't find the US on an unmarked map of the world or who don't know who Abraham Lincoln was.
Fingers are pointed at various aspects of the schooling system—overcrowded classrooms, lack of funding, teachers who can't pass competency exams in their fields, etc. But these are just secondary problems. Even if they were cleared up, schools would still suck. Why? Because they were designed to.
How can I make such a bold statement? How do I know why America's public school system was designed the way it was (age-segregated, six to eight 50-minute classes in a row announced by Pavlovian bells, emphasis on rote memorization, lorded over by unquestionable authority figures, etc.)? Because the men who designed, funded, and implemented America's formal educational system in the late 1800s and early 1900s wrote about what they were doing.

Almost all of these books, articles, and reports are out of print and hard to obtain. Luckily for us, John Taylor Gatto tracked them down. Gatto was voted the New York City Teacher of the Year three times and the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991. But he became disillusioned with schools—the way they enforce conformity, the way they kill the natural creativity, inquisitiveness, and love of learning that every little child has at the beginning. So he began to dig into terra incognita, the roots of America's educational system.

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes."

By the turn of the century, America's new educrats were pushing a new form of schooling with a new mission (and it wasn't to teach). The famous philosopher and educator John Dewey wrote in 1897:

Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.

In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry."

The next year, the Rockefeller Education Board—which funded the creation of numerous public schools—issued a statement which read in part:

In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.

At the same time, William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual.

In that same book, The Philosophy of Education, Harris also revealed:

The great purpose of school can be realized better in dark, airless, ugly places.... It is to master the physical self, to transcend the beauty of nature. School should develop the power to withdraw from the external world.

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.

Writes Gatto: "Another major architect of standardized testing, H.H. Goddard, said in his book Human Efficiency (1920) that government schooling was about 'the perfect organization of the hive.'"
While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process."

In other words, the captains of industry and government explicitly wanted an educational system that would maintain social order by teaching us just enough to get by but not enough so that we could think for ourselves, question the sociopolitical order, or communicate articulately. We were to become good worker-drones, with a razor-thin slice of the population—mainly the children of the captains of industry and government—to rise to the level where they could continue running things.

This was the openly admitted blueprint for the public schooling system, a blueprint which remains unchanged to this day. Although the true reasons behind it aren't often publicly expressed, they're apparently still known within education circles. Clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine wrote in 2001:

I once consulted with a teacher of an extremely bright eight-year-old boy labeled with oppositional defiant disorder. I suggested that perhaps the boy didn't have a disease, but was just bored. His teacher, a pleasant woman, agreed with me. However, she added, "They told us at the state conference that our job is to get them ready for the work world…that the children have to get used to not being stimulated all the time or they will lose their jobs in the real world."

John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001), is the source for all of the above historical quotes. It is a profoundly important, unnerving book, which I recommend most highly. You can order it from Gatto's Website, which now contains the entire book online for free.
The final quote above is from page 74 of Bruce E. Levine's excellent book Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (New York: Continuum Publishing Group, 2001).

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2009/03/educational-syst...

 

From Karl Marx and Frederick Engels - The Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Obama's First 100 Days - Focus On The Family

4-29-09
Print This Article
Forward to a Friend

A Look Back at Obama's First 100 Days

staff reports
'I would hope he would do more to protect families in this country.'
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama will mark his 100th day in office. Focus on the Family Action has analyzed his decisions and policies thus far, as they relate to the family.
In his first 100 days, Obama has:
• Signed an executive order allowing taxpayer funding to go to international groups that promote or provide abortions. The “Mexico City Policy,” as it’s known, also was rescinded by President Bill Clinton and then reinstated by President George W. Bush.
• Opened the door for more human embryos to be destroyed for unethical stem-cell research despite science showing that adult stem cells provide cures; to date, embryonic stem cells have not.
• Begun the process of rescinding the Bush health care provider conscience regulations. This move comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing a shortage of practicing physicians, a drop one senator described as reaching "crisis proportions." Making it easier for hospitals and medical schools to discriminate against physicians based on their moral or religious beliefs will only drive more of them out of the profession.
• Lifted a seven-year ban on taxpayer funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which is linked to forced abortion programs.
• Nominated Hillary Clinton as secretary of State. Clinton is an ardent pro-abortion politician who recently accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award. During her acceptance speech, Clinton praised the eugenicist Sanger as a great American.
• Nominated Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services. She has accepted campaign contributions from notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller and welcomed him into the governor’s mansion. Sebelius is one of the most pro-abortion governors in the country.
•Nominated Dawn Johnsen, former legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen has called motherhood “involuntary servitude” and has said that restrictions on abortion make women nothing more than “fetal containers."
• Attacked charitable giving by proposing a reduced tax deduction for gifts to nonprofits. If it becomes law, it will have a major impact on faith-based ministry giving and other nonprofits.
• Signed a bill that kills the District of Columbia’s successful school-choice program. The program benefits low-income families by providing private-school scholarships. Approximately 3,500 students have benefited from this program.
• Nominated David Hamilton to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton has been a board member for the ACLU and a fundraiser for ACORN. He has ordered the Indiana legislature to end its historic practice of beginning each session with a prayer, and has written an opinion in opposition to abortion clinics providing information to women about alternatives.
• Appointed Ellen Moran to a major communications post at the White House. Moran is the former executive director of the pro-abortion EMILY’s List.
• Nominated David Ogden, Tom Perrelli, Elena Kagan and Harold Koh to top Department of Justice and State Department posts. Ogden has been a legal advocate for pornography producers; Perelli helped lead the legal fight to remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo; Kagan supported denying military recruiters access to law schools; and Koh strongly advocates mixing foreign law into important U.S. constitutional debates.
• Expressed support for hate-crimes legislation and will sign if it reaches his desk. The House will vote on the measure April 29. The legislation creates a special class of crime based on the victim’s sexual orientation. Those accused of “inducing” a federal hate crime could be held responsible for the actions of another person. For example, pastors preaching against homosexuality could be charged with a crime if someone listening committed a “hate crime” against a gay individual.
• Ordered a legal review of hiring-and-firing standards instituted by faith-based groups that receive federal funding.
• Released a Department of Homeland Security “watch list” that included pro-life Americans.
Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family Action, said: "Focus often gets vilified for our public policy positions, but fundamentally, what Focus on the Family is about is seeing more families like Barack Obama’s in America — a man and a woman committed to their marriage and to each other, raising their kids.
"When we have 40 percent of babies born in ’07 to unwed moms, that’s a problem for our country," he said. "Everybody should be alarmed by that. And I think his first 100 days — we’ll let the historians talk about it.
"What I’m all about is marriage and parenting, and I would hope he would do more to protect families in this country."

The Change has Definitely Begun - Barack Obama's Legacy

We are apparently going to transparency in the new White House. We are also going to see a new era of turning our backs on God unlike any that has gone on before.

To review the several Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda go to the whitehouse.gov then the Briefing Room button then choose Executive Orders.

MEMORANDUM FOR

THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds "to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions." The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the "Mexico City Policy" directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

And here is the finely worded justification to expand abortion around the world using American taxpayers funding:

Saturday, January 24th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Statement released after the President rescinds "Mexico City Policy"

Yesterday, President Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy" and released the following statement:

It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. For these reasons, it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.

For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

It is time that we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.

I have directed my staff to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls.

In addition, I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries.

From Dr. James Dobson

Make sure your Focus on the Family Action news is delivered to your inbox! Add family@mail-family.org to your address book.

Forward to a Friend | Donate | FAQ Family News From Dr. Dobson October 2008 The November election promises to be one of the most consequential in recent memory. Come November 5th, this election will be over, barring hanging chads, voter fraud or an Electoral College tie. Regardless of the outcome, Focus ministries will continue to nurture and defend families as long as the Lord sustains the effort. This month, however, those who wish to contribute to our work have a choice of two organizations to support. The first is Focus on the Family®, which is a nonprofit ministry which can offer a tax-exempt receipt to all donors. Second, Focus on the Family Action™, which paid for this E-mail, needs support too, but contributions to it are not deductible. When Dr. Dobson first took to the airwaves in a tiny rented radio studio in 1977, he never could have fathomed the impact his work would have on the culture in years to come. Thirty-two years later, Focus on the Family, a Christ-centered ministry dedicated to the preservation of the family, continues to minister to people in need. We all appreciate your continued support and welcome any contribution you feel led to offer this month. Dear Friends, Can you feel the tension in the air? The nation--and indeed, the world--is holding its collective breath as the final days of the presidential campaign wind down and the candidates engage in one last round of electioneering and debating. By this time next month, we'll know whether Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated in January as the 44th President of the United States. Considering the stark differences between the two presidential candidates and the critical issues that are hanging in the balance, it's not difficult to understand why Campaign 2008 has been such a spirited affair. I'd like to take a few moments to consider what is at stake in this year's election, particularly for those of us who embrace a biblical worldview. Please understand that I will share these thoughts under the umbrella of Focus on the Family Action™, which has supported the preparation and distribution of this newsletter. Focus Action is, in turn, supported by contributions from those who do not receive tax deductible receipts for them. Thanks so much to you who made it possible. Let's start with the need to elect a pro-family, pro-life President. The importance of this objective cannot be overstated. Between 2009 and 2012, there will likely be two or more opportunities for the President to nominate new justices to the Supreme Court. Some court watchers say there could be as many as four resignations. That alone should give us serious pause as we consider for whom to cast our votes. In the months ahead, the Supreme Court will likely hand down rulings that will impact America for generations to come. We need a President who will nominate conservative, strict-constructionist judges to the Court. If that doesn't happen, the highest court in the land could become stacked--even more than it already is--with justices who will endeavor to legislate from the bench and impose a liberal agenda on the nation. It will likely affect the definition of marriage, religious freedom, and the protection (or lack thereof) of life in the womb. It's probably obvious which of the two major party candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview. While I will not endorse either candidate this year, I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency. This is not because I am beholden to the Senator from Arizona or to the Republican Party. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with my views knows that I have agonized at times during this election process, and have been strongly critical of Senator McCain and the Republican Party on numerous occasions. My concern is for the biblical and moral values that I and millions of Americans hold dear. I will gladly support politicians of any stripe who are willing to defend the sanctity of human life, support the institution of traditional marriage, protect the country from terrorism and advance the cause of religious liberty. While certainly not perfect, the 2008 Republican platform comes closest to embracing those ideals by a wide margin. In recent weeks, I have received some measure of criticism from those who feel that my "change of heart" toward John McCain is unwarranted. I understand those views and concede that the Senator continues to embrace positions that concern me. I don't apologize, however, for reevaluating our options in this election year. John Maynard Keynes, whose views I have disagreed with strongly, said this about reversing course: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"1 In this instance, Keynes' perspective is correct. Every thinking person will eventually have reason to change his or her mind as circumstances evolve, as they have done during this long political ordeal. There are four primary--and I believe compelling--reasons why I now view the McCain presidential candidacy favorably: During the "Saddleback Forum" on Aug. 16, Sens. Obama and McCain fielded questions from the Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren. Senator McCain gave very solid and encouraging answers to questions about the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, whereas Senator Obama came down at the other end of the argument. You will recall the following interchange during the forum: Pastor Rick Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Senator Obama: "... Answering that question with specificity, you know, is, uh, is, above my pay grade."2 With all due respect, Senator, if this question is above your pay grade, then so is the job attached to it. The Republican Party's 2008 national platform is a remarkably conservative document.3 Indeed, it is the strongest pro-life platform in the history of the party, surpassing even the pro-life advances of the Reagan years. It was approved and sanctioned by the McCain campaign. Senator McCain selected an astonishingly strong pro-life, pro-family running mate in Governor Sarah Palin. Although he could have embraced a liberal Vice Presidential nominee, such as Senator Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, he made the bold decision to join forces with a VP pick whose views reflect those of the party's conservative base. I'll discuss Governor Palin's candidacy in greater detail in a moment. The longer the campaign continues, the more concerned I have become with Barack Obama's liberal views. Certainly, he is an attractive and very charismatic candidate who has embarked on a campaign of historical proportions. However, the majority of his policies represent the antithesis of principles I hold dear. Senator Obama's record is more liberal than that of any other Democrat in the Senate4--and that's saying something! For example, when he was a state senator in Illinois, he voted four times in three years against legislation that would have saved the lives of babies that managed to survive the abortion process.5 The U.S. Senate subsequently passed similar legislation called The Born Alive Infant Protection Act by unanimous consent.6 (Obama was not a U.S. Senator at the time.) State Senator Obama was chairman of the committee that opposed this protection of babies, and in 2001 and 2002 was the only legislator who rose to argue against the Illinois Born Alive Act.7 That is an undeniable fact! My good friend, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum published a scathing analysis of Senator Obama's pro-abortion record earlier this year. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote: In March 2001, [Senator] Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."8 So according to [Senator] Obama, "they", (babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns,) should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.9 To further underscore Senator Obama's radical devotion to abortion rights, he has promised that "the first thing I'd do as president" would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.10 The FOCA is a devastating piece of legislation that would overturn nearly every local, state, and federal anti-abortion law passed in the last 40 years.11 In fact, it's so broadly written that legal analysts suggest the bill may prevent institutions and physicians from refusing to provide abortion services by invoking the conscience clause. Earlier this year, while talking about sex education and abortion, the Senator said the following: "I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."12 In other words, a pre-born baby is viewed as a form of punishment, and can therefore be murdered in the name of convenience. It is a matter of historic significance that Barack Obama has become the first African-American to capture the nomination of a major political party for the office of President of the United States. I applaud that remarkable accomplishment. Nevertheless, I cannot support his candidacy because the positions he holds on moral, social and family issues place him at the extreme left of the political spectrum. What the Senator believes and the policies he would seek to implement are on a collision course with the biblical principles and beliefs I have fought to defend for more than 35 years. Turning the corner, the significance of Governor Palin to the 2008 presidential race is also worthy of further consideration. Here is a woman who is a deeply committed Christian, and who is pro-life not only with regard to her policies, but in her personal life. She and her husband welcomed their latest child, Trig, into the world even though he was diagnosed with Down syndrome while still in the womb. Approximately 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted,13 but Governor Palin carried her precious child to term and now loves and cares for him despite the challenges associated with a special needs child. Similarly, her teenage daughter, Bristol, who became pregnant out of wedlock, could have bowed to cultural pressure to seek an abortion. Instead, she and the father plan to get married and raise their child together. Governor Palin has been married for 20 years, and by all accounts, she is a portrait of Christian motherhood and womanhood. As for Governor Palin's qualifications to be Vice President of the United States and to assume the mantle of President, should that ever become necessary, she is much better suited for the job than the talking heads on the liberal Left would have you believe. She came out of nowhere to win the Alaskan gubernatorial race against a powerful incumbent. While in office, she bravely fought widespread corruption--including that within her own party--in the face of great opposition. Govenor Palin's critics suggest that her experience as mayor of a "small town" is somehow a liability, but it is an asset. In fact, her time as Mayor of Wasilla and then as Governor of Alaska gives her a greater degree of executive experience than Senator Barack Obama can claim. Her qualifications to be Vice President, I would submit, exceed those of Senator Barack Obama, who spent only 143 working days in the U.S. Senate prior to announcing his run for President.14 He authored no significant legislation during that time. I'm sure you have heard the shrill voices from the political Left decrying Mrs. Palin for any and every reason under the sun. They gloat over the pregnancy of her daughter Bristol and claim it as "evidence" that abstinence education, which Sarah Palin strongly supports, is somehow a sham. They criticize Governor Palin for daring to hold political office and run for Vice President while having a baby at home, even though the Left has for decades supported a woman's right to do just that. The attacks on Governor Palin and her family in recent weeks have been astonishingly unfair and mean-spirited. If she were a liberal Democrat, she would be praised and lauded for making the same decisions for which she is now being criticized. The double standard is obvious. Governor Palin's decision to run for Vice President while raising a baby with special needs has given pause to some conservative voices as well. Some have even questioned my enthusiasm over Governor Palin's candidacy in light of these circumstances. It's important to note that although I have often said stay-at-home moms are vitally important to raising the next generation, I have never suggested that it is wrong for mothers to work outside the home. Indeed, Focus on the Family® has hired thousands of mothers over the years. I have said, however, that if a mother is going to enter the workplace, she and her husband must first find a way to meet the needs of their children. Sarah Palin appears to have done that. Todd, her husband, is actively involved in the raising of their children, and it seems obvious that Sarah will continue to be a positive force in her children's lives even as she carries out her duties in the political arena. Regardless of your political views, may I suggest that the Palins need our prayers, not our disdain, at this critical moment in our nation's history. Senator Obama's selection of fellow liberal Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.) is also extremely revealing. While the National Journal ranked Obama the most liberal Senator last year, Senator Biden was ranked 3rd on their list--just ahead of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a self-avowed socialist.15 While the Senator of 36 years from Delaware stands in blatant opposition to the pro-family movement, many of you will remember him from his vociferous opposition to several of our finer Supreme Court justices, namely, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas. Returning to our theme, America's future seems to hang in the balance at this time. Our next President will have a dramatic impact on countless legislative issues. Since being relegated to minority status in 2006, House Republicans have skillfully used the rules of parliamentary procedure to frustrate many of the Democrats' attempts to pass bad legislation. To this point, that effort has almost always been backed by a President who is willing to use the veto pen when necessary. The threat of President Bush's veto on hate crimes legislation and issues regarding the sanctity of life have kept a Democrat-controlled Congress from implementing its liberal agenda. Will our next President stand up to Congress in the same manner, or will he side with them, thereby giving the Democrats free reign to impose their liberal values on America? It is likely, say the pundits, that both the House and the Senate in the 111th Congress will still be controlled by Democrats. If that party also takes the White House, a wave of anti-family, pro-homosexual legislation is almost guaranteed to pass in 2009. The bills put forward and advanced this year by Democrats reveal where they want to take the country. For example, they inserted hate crimes language into the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, but were forced to remove it in conference, again under the threat of veto.16 While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted for a bill authorizing "comprehensive" sex education beginning in kindergarten. Defenders have attempted to downplay its significance, citing the fact that it called for the content to be "age appropriate" and "medically accurate"--dubious and subjective qualifiers given the sensitive nature of the topic and innocence of the audience!17 (When criticized for supporting this legislation, the Senator was dismissive and said proudly, I quote, "It's the right thing to do."18) Large portions of the agenda promoted by homosexual activists will also be enacted. The implications for a federal hate crimes law are clear. People speaking against homosexuality have already been prosecuted under hate crimes laws both in the United States and abroad. If a federal hate crimes law passes, there will be little to prevent the government from endeavoring to control and curtail religious speech, especially from the pulpit. It is entirely possible that a pastor could be charged with inducing a federal hate crime simply by preaching from one of the many biblical passages that address homosexuality. Congressional Democrats will also seek to pass the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, meaning businesses will be forced to accept and condone homosexuality--and possibly transgenderism--in making employment decisions. Further, business owners, including religious businesses, will not be able to make hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions. Earlier this year, Senator Barack Obama said, "I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepherd Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination Act."19 Finally, I am deeply concerned about the tax and spend policies Senator Obama will impose on the American people if he is elected, especially in light of the current financial crisis. This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy, yet, he has proposed enormous new federal programs and entitlements that will cost multiple billions of dollars. These initiatives cannot be effected without huge increases in taxation on businesses, which will be passed on to the public and to individual families. This will almost certainly require a return of the odious marriage penalty tax that plagued families for 34 years! The races for the White House and the Congress are hardly the only matters worthy of concern in this election cycle. At the state and local levels, numerous policies and pieces of legislation are being put to a vote, and many of them are directly related to family and moral issues. For example, the definition of marriage is on the ballot in Arizona (Proposition 102), California (Proposition 8) and Florida (Amendment 2). Voters in Colorado will be given the opportunity to expand the definition of "personhood" to include all human beings from the moment of fertilization (Amendment 48). In South Dakota, voters will be asked to ban all abortions except those involving cases of rape and incest, or when the pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the life or physical health of the mother (Measure 11). Michigan is considering whether to legalize embryonic stem cell research, which would result in the killing of tiny human beings. In California, voters will also get the chance to decide whether minor girls should be required to give 48 hours' notice to a parent or adult relative before having an abortion (Proposition 4). Arkansas voters will decide whether to prevent couples living together out of wedlock--heterosexual or homosexual--from adopting children or serving as foster parents. These are just a few of the important issues that, depending on which state you live in, will be on the ballot next month. I implore you to spend the few days remaining before the election researching the various amendments, ballot measures, and local and national candidates. Then, exercise your responsibility before God to vote on or before November 4th. Please, let your voices be heard. For more information, visit Focus on the Family Action's Web site. Regardless of your political views, I want to urge Christians everywhere to be in prayer about this election. There are many scriptural references wherein King David "inquired of God" when he was faced by troubling circumstances (1 Samuel 23:2,4; 30:8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19,23). It is time for Christians everywhere to turn to Him for guidance and wisdom. Find some time to be still and listen to what He wants to tell you. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, led by my wonderful wife, Shirley, has embarked on a national campaign entitled "Pray for Election Day." All around the country, individuals and groups are being encouraged to gather every Thursday leading up to November 4th between 12-noon and 12:30 p.m. Spend time with the Lord, asking Him to guide and direct those privileged to cast a ballot. If you are able, I would also encourage you to fast and pray immediately before the election. After all, it was the Reverend Billy Graham who once said that "To get nations back on their feet, we must first get down on our knees."20 Amen, Dr. Graham. This election is about the future of the nation, but it will also go a long way toward determining the culture your children and grandchildren will come to know. I know you will vote with your children and your children's children in mind. That certainly puts the election in a different light, doesn't it? You know my heart on these issues, and I hope you understand that I am less concerned with politicians and political parties than I am with the timeless biblical principles that those parties have the power to either strengthen or damage. No candidate is perfect, whether in this election or any other. Please don't make your decisions lightly. There is simply too much at stake. May God grant each of us wisdom as November 4th approaches. Sincerely, James C. Dobson, Ph.D. Founder and Chairman P.S. Since I began researching and writing this letter, the economic meltdown on Wall Street and congressional reaction to it has occurred. These are, indeed, difficult times for American families and businesses. Thank you for continuing to support this ministry, even though in many cases it has required sacrificial giving. You are helping to keep us afloat during this financial crisis, and we appreciate your contribution and prayers more than I can tell you. Please share this with your friends and family. Endnotes 1 Louis Uchitelle, "2 Mavericks in Economics Awarded Nobel Prize," The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2004, (Sept. 29, 2008). Also: Alfred L. Malabre, Lost Prophets: An Insider's History of the Modern Economists (1994), p. 220. (Responding to criticism when changing monetary policy in the midst of the Great Depression.) 2 Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum, CNN Transcript, Aug. 16, 2008. (Sept. 29, 2008). 3 Republican National Committee, 2008 Republican Platform, (Sept. 28, 2008). 4 "National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings," National Journal Group Inc., 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 5 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (September 2008). 6 frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S7084&position=all (Sept. 29, 2008). 7 bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.aspx (Sept. 30, 2008). 8 "Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act," Illinois Federation For Right to Life Daily News online, April 3, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 9 Rick Santorum, "The Elephant in the Room: Why conservatives should support McCain," The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 10 youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM (Sept. 29, 2008). 11 aul.org/FOCA (Sept. 29, 2008). 12 "Ballot Bowl 2008: More Campaign Happenings," CNN Transcripts, March 29, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 13 Patricia E. Bauer, "What's Lost in Prenatal Testing: Why Encourage Testing for Down Syndrome," Jan. 14, 2007, Washington Post. 14 "Days in Session Calendars," Thomas, The Library of Congress, (Sept. 29, 2008). 15 National Journal online, 2008, Ibid. 16 Paul Kane, "Hill Negotiators Drop Hate-Crime Provision," Washington Post, Dec. 7, 2007, (Sept. 29, 2008). 17 Byron York, "On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right," National Review Online, Sept. 16, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 18 "Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: 'It's the Right Thing to Do,'" Free Republic online, Sept. 10, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 19 Michael Foust, "Obama: If elected I will use the bully pulpit for gay causes," Baptist Press, Feb. 28, 2008, (Sept. 29, 2008). 20 Chuck Spinner, A Book of Prayers: To the Heavens from the Stars, (AuthorHouse: 2008), p. 225 (Sept. 29, 2008). Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.

Presidential Election 2008 - An Election of Life or Murder

Why You Should Vote

I am writing this because I am, for the first time in my life, frightened for my country. Not because of the economic situation, or the radical Islamic terrorists, nor because most of the young people are unaware of what the real issues are or what the candidates actually propose to change if elected.

No, friends, I am really worried about what our Father in Heaven will do if we get this election wrong. We have strayed so far from where we started in relation to the moral foundation of our founding documents that we hardly have a voice strong enough to put out the real message.

We have become a nation that sacrifices our unborn and yes, born to the "god" of selfishness. Of all of the ills this nation is going through, this is, in my estimation the end result of the slippery slope that we embarked upon many, many years ago. When we allowed the removal of the McGuffy readers we started the process to remove God from our education system. If we can remove God from there than we can remove Him from the public square. This was preceded by a "Supreme Court" that got it terribly wrong about "Separation of Church and State". We have allowed a liberal world view to infect the church as well.

But what also worries me is hearing that there are those who won't vote because they might get picked for jury duty. Beside the obvious argument that this line of thinking is so patently selfish and it sets a horribly self centered example for the children that you may have or of friends around you that look up to you. Besides the fact that this line of thinking is so unbelievably selfish because it says that you want all of the benefits of this republic in which we democratically elect our officials yet you don't want to MAYBE have to spend a little bit of YOUR time being a juror. Besides the fact that- those same people don't realize that in getting a driver's license they are put on the list from which prospective jurors are picked.

"I didn't ask to be on a jury--how did they get my name?

Everybody who is asked to serve on a jury gets on that list in the exact same way--by random selection from public lists such as voter rolls and license registrations. The idea is to find a group of jurors who represent a cross-section of the whole community."

But in this election the stakes are higher than any other time in history. This time the vote is for LIFE or MURDER. This time you have one candidate who will be on the side of life for the unborn and select judges for Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution which will defend our unborn.


The other candidate will do just the opposite. He is for "CHOICE" which translates to abortion which is MURDER no matter what name you chose to call it. He will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will reflect that same ideology.


So the very worst thing of all is that by not voting these same people will be voting for MURDER because every vote that does not go to the candidate that is for LIFE is the same as voting for the candidate that is for MURDER.

Besides, if you are going to reap the benefits of this system of government, which by all accounts is the best in the world, shouldn't you too invest a small amount of time in its governance? After all, you are responsible, whether you admit it or not, for the condition of the country that you hand over to your children.



Then there are those who won't vote for a candidate because he chose a woman as his running mate. That it is "not Biblical" as women should not be in a position of authority over men.

This argument is one of belief and there is not much of an argument pro or con that can be used when the issue is one of a person's belief.

I would just like to ask those that feel they can't vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin one question. Which is the more serious, more troubling, or of greater value to God?

A. A woman leading the secular government of a nation or,

B. That same nation being led by a man who will not only promote but facilitate the murder of the unborn and the murder of those babies that survive a failed abortion attempt

Are you willing to justify abandoning the weakest among us to the excuse that you "wrote in a candidate" thereby wasting a chance to stop abortion?

I humbly beseech you to carefully weigh this decision because as in all of our decisions, we will have to face God one day and be confronted with them.

Please listen to people like Dr. James Dobson and vote for LIFE.


May God bless each and every one of us and this nation.

This Is a Very Revealing Debate That Will Not Be Well Publicized

I ran across this article and thought worth republishing. It should be crystal clear which side of life Mr. Obama is on by now. But when you can actually argue for infanticide, especially in light of the fact that no other person in the Illinois Senate would state an objection to the proposed legislation, you are plumbing the depths of moral depravity. It is time to start considering whether or not the man is evil. Please remember that one definition of evil is "morally reprehensible". If arguing for the "morally reprehensible" act of doing the following:"Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting", does not fit the definition of evil, then we are in more trouble than I thought.


This is from Townhall.com


Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The Obama Debate Every American Should See


by Terence Jeffrey


The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.

Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked.

Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.

Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.

Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not.

So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.

In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.

"Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

"Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."

Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."

He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?

"And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."

"Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.

O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."

"No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."

For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

Focus On The Family Action September 30th, 2008

Tom Minnery


September 2008


Dear Friend,

What if the Left takes over?

We’ve been examining that question around here for the past year, and with Election Day now just weeks away, the answer is as troubling as ever. If Barack Obama wins the White

House and liberals fortify their ranks in Congress, here are some headlines that you and I can expect to read:

Obama signs Freedom of Choice Act, invalidating all state and federal pro-life laws
Defense of Marriage Act repealed; gay lobby celebrates federal benefits and marriage rights
Largest tax increase in history to pay for new entitlements, foreign aid
‘Out’ in the barracks: Homosexuality hits the armed forces
It’s Hillary! Obama’s Supreme Court pick should sail through Senate

If reading that list gives you heartburn now, just imagine how you’ll feel if those headlines become reality. As an organization that champions virtue in public policy, we’ve pondered that eventuality. And that’s why we’re doing everything we can to alert values voters about where their candidates stand and what’s at stake this fall. Let me share with you what your support is allowing us to do in two ways—publicly and privately.

The public battle: Informing voters through the media

You may have noticed that the major news outlets have been citing Focus Action a lot lately. That’s not by accident. The media team here at Focus Action does a remarkable job of taking the work that we do and marketing it to the media in a way that captures their attention. That allows us to use their own megaphones to get our message out to far more people.

Two great examples of this are recent Focus Action radio broadcasts in which we addressed the presidential race. First, Dr. Dobson took the lead in exposing the truth behind the Obama speech in which the Illinois senator essentially mocked the authority of Scripture and twisted the plain meaning of the Constitution.

The marketing ingenuity of our Focus Action media team turned this into a major national story, with clips from our broadcast airing on ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS and every major cable news network. Media coverage was intense: The Associated Press’ coverage of the broadcast was the top story on The Drudge Report (TheDrudgeReport.com) for several hours, and by the end of the day there were more than 400 TV news reports and radio stories within the country’s top 20 markets alone. In addition, our message went out in 332 newspaper articles. The total potential audience of all that coverage was more than 100 million viewers, listeners and readers. The “earned media” value of this coverage (what it would have cost us to purchase the airtime and print space) was more than $2 million!

A second Focus Action broadcast also became a big story. For months, there has been significant discussion nationally about Dr. Dobson’s comments that were critical of John McCain.

Like many of you, I suspect, Dr. Dobson was not a fan of Sen. McCain during the primaries. In fact, he even said there was no way he could vote for McCain, even if the Arizona senator should win his party’s nomination.

Dr. Dobson Enthused about Palin Choice

Campaigns Shift as McCain Choice Alters the Race
. . . "We had a solid Republican and evangelical base," said Charlie Black,
a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. "But now it's going to be very intense."
James C. Dobson, the influential conservative Christian leader who said
in the primaries that he could never vote for Mr. McCain, said the selection of
Ms. Palin had won him over. If he went into the voting booth today, Mr. Dobson
told the talk radio host Dennis Prager on Friday, "I would pull that lever."
If Ms. Palin motivates evangelicals to rally behind the Republican ticket
as they did for Mr. Bush in 2004, it could prove significant is states like Iowa
and Ohio, where Republicans won by slim margins in 2004. . . .

As the general election choices became clear, however, Dr. Dobson felt compelled to re-evaluate his position and let his radio listeners know that he might vote for McCain. Once again, our media department put together a stellar plan for multiplying the impact of this broadcast, and the results were astounding. Another Associated Press story was quickly carried nationwide, and Dr. Dobson’s encouraging comments about McCain turned up everywhere from The New York Times and USA Today to Hannity & Colmes and CNN Headline News. The media strategy spawned more than 150 TV and radio stories that reached a total potential audience of more than 50 million—with an earned media value of more than half a million dollars.

Ultimately, there were four reasons for Dr. Dobson’s re-evaluation of McCain: 1) Sen. McCain’s powerful comments during the Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren, 2) The Republican Party platform, which is the strongest pro-life, pro-family platform in memory, 3) McCain’s selection of Gov. Sarah Palin and 4) The policy positions of Barack Obama. Even as I write, Dr. Dobson continues to get major media coverage on these points from The New York Times, Fox News and elsewhere.

The private battle: Targeting voters directly
As important as the mass media is, there’s no substitute for direct contact with individual citizens—letting them know where their candidates stand and encouraging citizens to take action. Your support for Focus Action is allowing us to do that in a big way in up to 16 states with key U.S. Senate and House races.

When a voter in one of these areas receives a mailer or an e-mail with a side-by-side comparison of the candidates, it doesn’t make a big, public splash like a TV ad. But dollar-for-dollar, it’s the most effective way to reach that voter and convince them to take action. We’re also making it easy for them to share the information with others by copying, printing or forwarding. And we’ll be using carefully targeted radio ads.

Finally, you may recall that earlier this year I told you about Tim Gill and his stealth, multimillion-dollar effort to take over state legislatures for his pro-homosexual agenda. His success in several states in 2006 has prompted us to launch a major research project that has uncovered—in advance this time—his targets for 2008. We’ll be putting that information to use by again using a two-pronged strategy—public and private—to let voters in those specific states know what he is doing.

I’ll hold off on more details or samples right now to avoid revealing too much information to our ideological opponents, but I’ll report back to you later on. You can keep abreast of the latest election news each week with me and Stuart Shepard via our new Focus Action Election Update video features.

Meanwhile, though, thank you for your sacrificial gifts that allow us to do this work on your behalf. Above all, please be in prayer for our work and for the nation.

Sincerely,Tom Minnery

Senior Vice President

Focus on the Family Action

P.S. You should be aware that contributions have been well below budget all summer, which has put us in a position where we may have to scale back some of the plans I’ve mentioned. Your gift now, however, can still help ensure that we are able to go full force with the full plan—right up to November 4.

You can make a difference! Support Focus on the Family Action™ today.