Law & Politics
Uncle Tom was the figure in Harriet Beecher Stow's famous novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The character in the novel was quite virtuous, but the term "Uncle Tom" is often used in a derogatory manner. Instead of resisting the enslavement of their race, "Uncle Toms" helped slave-owners maintain their control over the lesser field slaves. "Uncle Toms" would even be useful in mistreating and punishing other slaves, and would receive preferential treatment for it. "Uncle Toms" were Judas Iscariots who betrayed their own people for selfish reasons.
Obama's an "Uncle Tom."
Obama has officially consorted with Planned Parenthood in the slaughter of millions of black babies, and in office he plans to expand the reach of the black-baby-killers. In July of 2007, Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first piece of legislation he would sign would be the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would invalidate virtually all abortion limits approved by state legislatures in all fifty states. All partial birth abortion bans, all parental notification laws, virtually all state legislation that has decreased the amount of abortions would be overturned by Obama's bill. In fact, the Freedom of Choice Act would see the closing of Catholic and other religious or private hospitals. This legislation would remove any conscience-clause measures from state laws that protect doctors, hospitals, and medical professionals who don't want to be involved in abortions.
Obama's position on abortion is more extreme than any pro-abortion Democrat. As an Illinois State Senator, he publicly defended infanticide, the killing of living, breathing babies who survived late-term abortions. Even Hillary Clinton voted for the Born Alive Protection Act, the legislation in the U.S. Senate that was akin to the Illinois legislation that Obama opposed. He is a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion killing organization in the world.
Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was an advocate of eugenics who coined the term "birth control". Her views were very extreme, and yet Planned Parenthood, the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, has never repudiated her, but continues to honor her and even distributes an annual "Margaret Sanger Award" to supporters. Margaret Sanger advocated birth control and, if necessary, forced sterilization for those deemed unfit for reproduction. She believed that African Americans were an inferior race that required white masters to control and subdue them for the betterment of civilization.
Margaret Sanger wrote of her dependence upon African-American ministers and social leaders in order to succeed in her "Negro Project" mission to exterminate the black race. In essence, she needed some Uncle Tom's. She said, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members... I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people."
Barack Obama is the Uncle Tom of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, who had as their mission to "exterminate the Negro population." So are all the ministers who turned a blind eye to Obama's extreme pro-abortion views and endorsed him because of the color of his skin. The injustice of slavery and the Holocaust of black babies in America could never continue without the likes of them.
What hypocrisy for Obama to claim to champion the dream of African Americans since the time of colonial slavery, and yet lead the way in slaughtering more African American babies than ever! According to statistics provided by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, for every two African American women that get pregnant one will choose to abort. A black baby in America is five times more likely to be killed in the womb than a white baby. Even so, that's not enough dead black babies for Barack Obama.
The preborn child is Obama's "nigger-slave" - the dehumanized expendable human being whose rights are to be ignored and who is to be exploited and destroyed for the profit of the powerful.
I am amazed at the liberty Americans are willing to give up for a little treat. Americans were overwhelmingly against the bailout of Wall Street executives and high-rolling bankers. Investors who took big risks to earn big profits must also bear the losses. According to many experts, the government bailout only postpones the inevitable, making it much more painful and expensive over the long run. It also devalues the dollar through the Federal Reserve's inflationary printing of money to meet Congress' deficit demands. Over 400 economists - some renown - have signed a petition to strongly oppose the bailout. It failed in the House the first time, in part, because of the strong disapproval of most of Congress' constituents.
The Senate responded by attaching a hundred billion dollars of hand-outs and "targeted" tax breaks to the bill and it passed in the Senate 74-25 on October 2. The goodies in the bill have quieted the opposition. We saw the same thing in the House on October 3rd: so much pork for constituents back home had been attached to the bill that it easily passed in the House 263-171. Our children and grandchildren are already facing tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities with Social Security and Medicare, and yet we enslave them with even more intolerable debt.
James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Unconstitutional spending is unlawful spending, its popularity notwithstanding.
Read political mailings and the letters to the editor and you will realize how so many want the state to pay for things that they do not want to pay for themselves. We demand the state to provide for cheaper health insurance, better educational institutions, free mental health services, better homes for less money, and cheaper fuel. Businessmen want the politicians to help their particular business with handouts from the treasury (in exchange for campaign donations for their re-election, of course.) We want more free milk from the governments teats, financed at the expense of everybody else. And if the taxpayers cannot afford the handouts we demand, then we borrow it and make our posterity pay it back with interest.
As with most of the unconstitutional duties with which government bureaucracies encumber themselves, the free market can do it better and with less expense. Private education, for example, costs half as much as public education. Yet the bureaucrats still want more money "for the kids." The Muskingum County Home is another example. It costs $68,208 per year per resident at the County Home, $56,508 of which is subsidized by the taxpayer. It would be far cheaper to pay any of the established homes in the region to care for our indigent seniors. We are already taxed for Medicaid, but the County Home is not even eligible for Medicaid funding. Imagine what the county could do to serve all Muskingum County residents with an extra $3 million per year, rather than spending those funds on just sixty residents whose care is already provided by Medicare and Medicaid.
The pit of economic bleakness looks like a black hole into the future to those attentive to the recent indiscretions of the federal government. I am concerned about the future of our national economy not primarily because of the predictable dramatic failures of private companies in recent weeks, but because of the government's responses to them. Risky business deserves most of the blame for the crisis, but government regulation, particularly Congress' delegation of monetary authority to the Federal Reserve company and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also deserves much of the blame. Now what do the politicians propose as a bipartisan remedy? More risky government spending and more government regulation!
The recent failure of Ameribank, the twelfth federally insured bank to fail this year, the failure of mega-mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the bankruptcy of investment company Lehman Brothers, the demise of Merryl Lynch, and the colossal failure of one of the largest insurance companies in the world, the American International Group (AIG) - all this would be traumatic enough without a government response that irresponsibly wastes taxpayer money and devalues the dollar,
The $85 billion dollars bailout of AIG last week was a move so stupid that only a bureaucracy with no personal wealth invested could do it. With this move, the government is taking over a half-trillion dollars in worthless mortgages and other bad debt by failing institutions. And this, politicians are calling an investment? This is the largest intervention ever of the federal government into private industry. Fannie and Freddie will cost the taxpayers between $300 billion and one trillion dollars. (A trillion dollars, to put it into perspective, is the wealth of a million millionaires.) The taxpayers have also been forced pay $29 billion to take the risk for billions of dollars of bad investments by Bear Stearns. On September 24, Congress loaned $25 billion to "struggling U.S. automakers," a request that banks wouldn't touch because of its risk. This handout was endorsed by the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. There was also over 2,322 pet projects tagged to the September 24th bill which totalling $650 billion dollars, designed to rape the taxpayers' bank accounts to help the incumbants get re-elected. The politicians from both classes continue to spend, spend, spend, deficit or no deficit.
Our founders tried to prevent this kind of Communist intervention into the free market with the Tenth Article of the Constitution, which limits the central government to designated duties and gives all other obligations to the states or the people. Is there any constitutional authority for the federal government to take over private industry? No. These bailouts are unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.
It's so easy to be risky with someone else's money. Imaging a weekend of gambling somebody else's millions in Las Vegas - wouldn't that be fun? If you lose the money, it wasn't yours anyway. Think about all the friends you could make by handing fistfulls of money to fellow-gamblers, and all of the carelessness they could exhibit since it was not their money they were gambling. How giddy with compassion our politicians and bureaucrats get with our money!
Some of these failing companies, such as AIG, attempted to get private investors and banks to loan them the money they needed to stay afloat, but were unable. Why? They were not sufficiently profitable. Their investments were risky. Their income and equity could not sufficiently guarantee that the loans requested would be repaid. The books showed that they were unlikely to be able to pay their bills and keep their promises to investors. It was just too darn risky.
Unable to get loans from banks and free investors, the free-market demanded that these companies liquidate assets in order for them to compete. The free market was demanding that AIG's CEOs and automaker executives cut their million dollar bonuses, sell unprofitable assets, lay off employees that were less profitable to business, and make dramatic cuts of employee benefits. Isn't that the fiscally responsible thing to do when your bills are greater than your income? Spend less, sell something, and get out of the red and back in the black, right?
Sarah Palin Is Disqualified From Being Vice President
By Patrick Johnston
Conservatives are so naïve, and religious conservatives are too often downright stupid. All the evidence we require to embrace a candidate is criticism of that candidate from our opponents in the culture war, and the more fervent the spite and criticism, the more lavish the praise we heap upon the Republican being criticized. Why do we think the left is any more sincere when they condemn Republicans as when they praise artificially-inseminated lesbian actresses? Why do conservative leaders sacrifice their credibility and their reputations based upon the words of God-haters, sodomite-sympathizers, and child-killing pro-aborts?
Sarah Palin has the rhetoric in defense of life that has clenched the devotion of pro-lifers, but not the actions. As a matter of fact, her actions cast a grave shadow upon her professed commitment to protect life. Choosing to allow the birth of her Down's Syndrome child and accepting a grandchild illegitimately conceived is not evidence of any commitment to the God-given right to life - after all, pro-abortion feminists have Down's Syndrome children and accept their illegitimately conceived offspring.[i] Are our brains made of jello? Where is the discernment and intellectual commitment to the exclusive standard of right and justice found within the Bible? The word of God declares that we are judge righteous judgment (John 7:14). We are to judge by actions, not just words. Pragmatism is not the Christian's standard of judgment.
My foremost critique is that abortion remained legal in Alaska where she was Governor, and she did nothing to protect the preborn and actually helped undermine the only opportunity she had to restrict abortion. As Governor, she is the chief executive power in the state, and has the divine obligation to be "God's minister" to "execute wrath against evildoers" and be a "terror" to those who would assault God's innocent children.[ii] She took an oath to uphold the Alaska constitution which declares "all persons have a natural right to life." She had the constitutional authority to veto and sign all legislation. If she had exercised this divine and constitutional authority, she could have, by God's power, obtained justice for the preborn in Alaska. For example, if she had insisted that she was not going to sign any legislation - NONE! - until the legislature did its duty to protect life within their jurisdiction and pass an abortion ban, she could have brought abortion to a screeching halt. If she vetoed every sing piece of legislation until an abortion ban arrived on her desk, there is a very good chance she would have gotten it within the month! She could have called out the National Guard to shut down the killing centers and cordone off those facilities to be investigated for crimes against humanity. She could appoint the Attorney General and state prosecutors on condition that they will prosecute child-killers and shut down killing centers by all legal means.[iii] She could have defied the unconstitutional and immoral Roe v. Wade decision and prosecuted murderers in Alaska.
Instead of doing her God-ordained duty, Sarah Palin did nothing to protect the preborn within her jurisdiction. Absolutely nothing![iv] As a matter of fact, the USA Today reported this week, "This year she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session."[v] Fomer aide Larry Persily said that she opposed the measures because she didn't want to risk offending the Democrats in the statehouse.
The issues on which she did do something productive as Alaska Governor were not friendly to conservatives...By Patrick Johnston, (Aug. '08)
Want a Presidential dream ticket that will unify the country? I propose that Obama pick McCain as his Vice President and McCain pick Obama. That way, if one loses the election, at least he'll be Vice President! Think about it: Obama's largest deficit from a purely pragmatic basis is his youth, his lack of political and foreign policy experience, a deficit that McCain would dramatically rectify. McCain's most significant problem with the average voter is that he looks and sounds old, his presence doesn't resonate well with the younger generation, and he associates with warmonger G.W. Bush - a problem that would certainly be remedied by picking Obama as his Vice President. Why not? Of the two candidates, McCain would still be the lesser of two evils even with Obama as his V.P., and V.P. Obama could not be any worse that prime V.P. potential Lieberman. If each picked his opponent as his V.P., would that help repair the partisan division that's tearing at our country? Besides, McCain and Obama actually do agree on so many things: on gay rights, on tax cuts, on illegal immigration, on gun control, on the environment, and on abortion - they agree more than they differ, all election-year conversions and poll-directed rhetoric aside.
Obama's extremist liberal positions are no secret to anyone not seduced by his delicious charisma about which the media never ceases to remind us. He is for amnesty for illegal immigrants, taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, more government control over every aspect of our lives, gun control, and gay marriage. However, my die-hard Republican detractors will quote McCain's campaign trail rhetoric to prove that McCain's stances differ dramatically from Obama's, and that McCain is a proven pro-life conservative. Unfortunately for them, McCain's actions speak louder than his words, and his words since he was elected Senator almost a decade ago speak so much louder than his words today.
1. John McCain supports the killing of some innocent preborn children by abortion.
John McCain claims to be pro-life on the campaign trail, but has repeatedly justified abortion in cases of rape or incest or to protect the life of the pregnant woman. That is, he thinks it is okay to murder some innocent children by abortion. In what way is that pro-life? If abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being, how can it be justified on the basis of the father's crime or the circumstances of conception? How many people must a murderer murder before he's committed a crime that disqualifies him to live freely in society? How many murders must a politician justify and tax-subsidize before they are disqualified for government office?
As recently as his 2000 Presidential election campaign, he said "Certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous (abortion) operations." In a South Carolina debate with George W. Bush before the 2000 election, John McCain expressly opposed the pro-life plank of the Republican Party platform. ...
When the CP executive committee refused to keep its public promises and disaffiliate state chapters that had leadership that continued justified abortion in cases of rape, incest, and fetal handicap, and/or state chapters that ran candidates that openly justified abortion (California and Nevada), then the Ohio CP organized a formal protest with other state affiliates committed to protect the preborn.
For the first time in United States history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment. After almost 50 million babies killed since Roe v. Wade, it's about time! The Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Colorado this November will read "the terms ‘person' or ‘persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." The amendment states a scientific, indisputable fact that we have known well before Roe v. Wade, that human life begins at fertilization, when a father's sperm and mother's egg unite. After that point, the being is a growing, maturing human person. After fertilization, nothing makes us any more alive or any more human than the moment before. If this amendment passes, it will, in effect, force the Colorado legislature and the Colorado justice system to treat the preborn like people and protect them from death by abortion.
The pro-abortion machine is in full swing with their "smoke and mirrors" campaign to obfuscate the real issues at stake. NARAL Colorado's website scares us with frightening scenarios where unintended pregnancies skyrocket and back-alley abortion centers thrive because contraceptives would be banned under the amendment. In a John Lofton interview with Toni Panetta, Deputy Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, the tactic of choice is to deceive, obfuscate, and fear-monger.[i] She refused to deal with the point of contention in this debate. When Mr. Lofton asked her when she thought life began, she refused to answer. When he asked her, "If it were proven that human life begins at fertilization, would you be against aborting that human life?" she said that it was irrelevant and changed the subject. If this amendment passes, Ms. Panetta warned us that contraceptives will be banned and women will suffer.
The hesitance of pro-lifers to address contraception may cripple us in our ability to identify and expose their "smoke and mirrors" arguments to the public. Pro-lifers must realize that something can be sin and yet not criminal. It may be wrong for Christians and Catholics to take oral contraceptives for Scriptural reasons, and with the lingering question that hormonal contraceptives may cause abortions.[ii],[iii] Those are the reasons that I refuse to prescribe oral contraceptives in my medical practice. But I am reluctant to condemn those who do because I am not convinced that they cause abortions. I think that this is an issue in which people can in good conscience disagree.
Many sincere pro-lifers have sincere ethical objections to hormonal contraception. There is much scientific literature that claims one of the ways hormonal contraception functions is to thin the inner lining of the uterus to make it "hostile" to the fertilized egg should breakthrough ovulation occur, as it occasionally does. If the prescribed hormonal contraceptive acts part of the time by preventing implantation of the fertilized embryo into the inner lining of the mother's uterus, it is in this instance acting as an abortion drug, not as a contraceptive.
However, it must be admitted that it is not proven that oral contraceptives cause abortions of embryos that are conceived through breakthrough ovulations. It is an unproven theory. There are strong arguments that oral contraceptives do not cause abortions of embryos conceived in breakthrough ovulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in a case challenging Louisiana's law which allows the execution of those who rape children twelve years of age and younger. The popular legislation breezed through the Louisiana legislature in 1995, and was only held up by the debate on whether child rapists should be castrated. In addition to Louisiana, Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and South Carolina also have laws allowing convicted child rapists to be executed.
There are two rapists on death row in Louisiana: Patrick Kennedy, 43 years of age, was convicted of raping his eight-year old stepdaughter. Richard Davis was convicted of repeatedly attacking and raping a five-year-old girl.
Earlier this month, Corey Saunders, 26, was sentence to five years in prison for violating his probation after four years in prison for the attempted rape of a seven-year-old boy. How did he violate his probation? He raped a five-year-old in on January 30 in a public library in Boston. On a video played in court on April 4th, the child said the assault was like being attacked by a "T-rex and an alligator." The boy described how Saunders lured him between bookshelves at the library's magazine room, fondled and raped him.
Right here in Zanesville, Ohio, Randy Dillon was recently convicted for abducting and raping a fourteen-month old girl. He's facing a long span in Ohio's correctional institutions. Think that will correct him? Think he will have learned his lesson by the time he is paroled or his prison sentence is completed?
Who can deny that such utterly despicable crimes merit the death penalty?
When speaking at a church men's meeting in Coshocton, I asked several men what they thought should be done to child rapists? The most common opinion I heard was that they be castrated. Is this an appropriate penalty for child rape? Does castration provide an adequate disincentive to protect the innocent? ...Newspaper Editorial Board Misrepresents Dr. Johnston's Positions to the Public
I should feature it as a "Breaking News" alert on my campaign website: "Dr. Johnston's Opponent Gets Endorsement of Liberal, Dishonest Newspaper Editorial Staff." Because of my outspoken conservative stands against abortion, for less state spending, and for "school choice", I did not expect to get this endorsement anyway. However, I was hopeful that I and the issues for which I stand would receive fair treatment in the newspaper after my opponent and I received a fair interview by the Editorial Boards of the Coshocton Tribune and the Times Recorder on February 8.
I was, however, misrepresented by the editorial staff in their editorial on Sunday, February 17. My position on education, on jobs, and on abortion was made thoroughly clear during the interview, and has been made thoroughly clear in the articles on my campaign website. There was no room for confusion on where I stand on the issues.
First, the editorial board gave the impression in their article that I have not focused at all on bringing jobs into the area. That is patently false. Most of my campaign literature focuses on doing what is necessary to increase jobs in Ohio. During my fundraisers in Coshocton and Zanesville, I spent most of the time of my lecture on bringing jobs into the area.* During the interview with the editorial boards, I articulated a clear plan that would cause employment to blossom in Ohio.
Secondly, the editorial board misrepresented my position on education and told the reader that I wanted to "disband public education." Nothing could be further from the truth! I want to improve public education by doing what is best for the education of the children instead of what is best for the government system. I have an extensive article detailing my plan to improve the cost efficiency and quality of the education of the public in a manner that would remedy the present unconstitutional system of school funding. I detailed my position on public education during the interview. The editorial board was not ignorant at all of my position on education, so there is no excuse for their caricature of my position in their editorial. I want to work toward a free-market educational system that puts the control of public education into the hands of parents instead of bureaucrats. I want to implement the plank of the Republican Party platform called "school choice." I want to free local educators from the constraints of bad educational policies imposed on them by superiors. I want to free taxpayers from the unreasonable expense of the top-heavy government bureaucracy that doesn't serve their children well. I want to make government schools better, but I don't want to disband public education.
Dr. Johnston's Opponent Believes that the Ohio State Legislature Should Not Ban Abortion, and That the Rights of Ohio Concealed Carriers Should Be Restricted
You now have the exciting opportunity to listen online to Dr. Patrick Johnston and Troy Balderson, the 94th Ohio District Republican candidates for State Representative, field questions from the editorial boards of the Coshocton Tribune and the Zanesville Times Recorder.
Mr. Balderson has declared that that he was "100% pro-life"; but in political campaigns, too often words are used to appeal to a constituent group, not to demonstrate any sincere belief or intention. So when a candidate admits that he is pro-life, we must always ask, "What do you mean by that?" When finally forced to elaborate on his position, Troy Balderson informs us that, although he is personally "pro-life," he would not protect the preborn in Ohio if he is elected to the legislature After all, Mr. Balderson claims an abortion ban would not prevent "back alley abortions."
Mr. Balderson also claims that he will "protect and defend our second amendment rights." However, if you will listen to the debate online you will hear Mr. Balderson argue for restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in Ohio.