Month Archives: November 2010

Winston Churchill: November 30, 1874

by Robert Morrison

November 30, 2010

ChurchillToday is not a holiday in Britain. Or in the U.S. Perhaps it ought to be. Its Winston Churchills birthday. Churchill was born into another world. A month or more premature, young Winston breathed his first in the splendid Blenheim Palace, the ducal home of his famous Marlborough ancestors.

As much at home among titled English aristocrats as he was, Churchill also became the great commoner. All his life he defended democracythe right of the people to govern themselves. And he boasted of his descent, on his American mothers side, from the Indian princess Pocahontas.

One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to toss the bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office. And as for any idea of a Special Relationship between the U.S. and Britain, there was none. The British were no different, as far as this White House was concerned, than any of the other 189 members of the UN.

Before the Waste Management truck comes to cart off what remains of the Special Relationship, it might be a good idea to recall what it was and why it was important.

Prior to 1939, there was still a great deal of hostility toward England and all things English in this country. Students in American high schools then learned a lot about our revolutionary struggles against the British monarchy. They probably also learned about some of the cruelties of our estranged mother country.

At the famous Battle of Bunker Hill, redcoats finally took the heights after a furious fight. Boston Patriot leader Dr. Joseph Warren took part in that struggle. Act worthy of yourselves, Dr. Warren told his men, in words that Ronald Reagan would quote in his First Inaugural Address. Reagan would not remind Americans that the victorious redcoats presented Dr. Warrens head to their general as a trophy, in an act that marked them as savages.

Americans prior to World War II were taught that hundreds of our boys died during the revolution in rotting prison ships, stinking hulks tied to the docks of New York City. When our Continental soldiers tried to surrender to the redcoats on Long Island in 1776, Hessian mercenaries ran them through with their 17-inch bayonets. The heroic 21-year old Nathan Hale, convicted of spying in a drumhead court-martial, was even denied a chaplain to comfort his last moments on earth. It was Hale who, on the threshold of eternity, said: I only regret I have but one life to give for my country. His country was not England.

British troops conducted a campaign of rape and plunder across New Jersey in 1776. Their Hessian hirelings even stripped a Presbyterian army chaplain, forced him to his knees in the road, and killed him with thirteen stab wounds for the thirteen original states.

These are but a few of the storiesall documentedof British brutality against the American Patriots. Churchill knew all these stories. He knew our history better then than many of us know it now.

Churchill knew America better than any other British political leader of his day. He had traveled and lectured extensively in the U.S. He had many American friends. Almost alone among the leaders of the Conservative Party, Churchill actually liked Americans.

With the menace of Hitlers formidable Nazi war machine arising across the Channel, Churchill instantly comprehended that Britain must have a closer tie, a Special Relationship, with what he called the Great Republic.

As war clouds gathering over Britain, Churchill began a correspondence with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He signed his letters former naval person. In World War I, Churchill had been the leader of the Royal Navy, then the largest, most powerful in the world. He regularly informed FDR of events on the Continent and in Britain.

When Britain declared war on Germany following Hitlers unprovoked attack on Poland in 1939, Churchill returned to the government, once again leading the Royal Navy. Winston is Back was the jubilant message cabled to every one of His Majestys Ships around the world. After nine months of phony war in the west, Hitler smashed through Frances weakened defenses and Churchill was catapulted into the Prime Ministers office.

Instead of pathetically pleading for American help, as the hapless Premier of France had done when Hitlers panzer tanks overran his country, Churchill argued that only British courage and resolve would gain Americans respect. As Hitlers Luftwaffe rained down destruction on London, Churchill made sure the Nazi blitz was transmitted to American firesides by means of radio broadcasts. His stirring speeches to the British people were the lions roar of resistance to an unspeakable tyranny.

Churchill spoke unapologetically of protecting our hearths and our altars. Though no churchgoer himself, he readily acknowledged that Britains fight was a fight for Christian civilization.

Courageous himself, he inspired courage in others. And he warned of what would happen if they faltered:

But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Listen to the proposals of this administration, to all of its schemes to create human beings and then to use them for experiments. Then they will kill those very human beings before they can breathe free. To hear of these plots is to comprehend that phrase lights of perverted science.

Maybe thats why this administration doesnt like Winston Churchill. With all its bowing and reaching out to what it terms the Muslim world, where is the understanding we used to have of Western civilization? Where is the spirited defense of human rights against an ideology of slavery and murder?

Today, lets remember Churchills leadership and his eloquence. Lets be thankful that at such a time, America had such a friend.

Obama Administration Works at the Behest of Hollywood

by Chris Gacek

November 30, 2010

An interesting editorial in the Washington Times today points to the extent to which federal law enforcement is doing the bidding of Hollywood, a major political ally of the Obama Administration.

On a day when our governments dangerous inability to control the Wikileaks enterprise is manifest for all the world to see, the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and DHSs Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton held a press conference trumpeting the fact the U.S. executed seizure orders against 82 domain names of commercial websites engaged in what the agency called the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works as part of Operation In Our Sites v. 2.0. See article.

The Washington Times is correct to look on this operation less charitably:

Mr. Morton revealed the Homeland Security Departments true motivation in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in July. He bragged about working closely with the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, which now provide focused training for customs officials. On June 30, a total of 75 of these highly trained ICE agents were tasked with seizing nine websites accused of sharing movies. This bold expansion of government authority was announced at Walt Disney Studios, emphasizing just how in the pocket of Hollywood this administration has become.

Ms. Napolitanos priority should be to protect the homeland - especially our borders - not to squander resources protecting the business model of an industry thats been most generous in its support of President Obama and his party. Government agencies shouldnt be allowed to silence free speech as political payback.

Also of note some of the seizures were not so clear cut: The department grabbed several file-sharing websites that did not themselves host unlawful content under the dubious theory that the sites assisted users looking for free movies and music over the Internet.

The only good news here is that federal legislative effort to make the copyright regime and its enforcement even more draconian, is likely to die in the lame duck session.

An Excellent Analysis of the Liberal Meltdown: Liberalism’s Very Bleak Future

by Chris Gacek

November 29, 2010

Perhaps, the best article on the recent election and the political trends that it represents was written by Chapman University professor, Joel Klotkin, in a Nov. 19 article for the Politico. While the media trumpets trends that they believe signal the long-run demise of conservatism (e.g., demographics of immigration), Klotkin criticizes analysts for overlooking the albatross of contemporary liberalism and its devastating impact on the Democrats one month ago. He notes that liberalism is no longer interested in producing upward economic mobility for the middle class:

Modern-day liberalism, however, is often ambivalent about expanding the economy preferring a mix of redistribution with redirection along green lines. Its base of political shock troops, public-employee unions, appears only tangentially interested in the health of the overall economy.

In fact, it is probably worse than Klotkin describes it because the environmentalists are completely opposed to any realistic use of carbon-based energy to power our economy. Thus, the Obama Administrations EPA is instituting amazingly destructive regulations in tandem with its Dept of the Interior that does everything it can to prevent fossil fuel extraction in the United States.

Klotkin, who lives in California, also appears to believe that Texas is the new California as he wrote in a recent Forbes column:

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

California is now liberalisms Ground Zero with such winners in charge as Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Henry Waxman, George Miller, etc. Oh, I forgot to list Jerry Brown who gave California public employees the right to unionize.

It is almost unimaginalble what has happened to California in twenty years. Yet, there was one enormous difference between California and the Southern states that supported Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 the South has always been a right-to-work region. California was not and has harbored pockets of extreme Leftism never present in the South. The rise of the public employee unions along with environmentalists makes it virtually impossible for modern liberalism to present a pro-growth agenda that is an albatross about which Coleridge could have written mournful verse.

Vigil for Nascent Life: Saturday, Nov. 27th, 2010

by Family Research Council

November 23, 2010

This coming Saturday, November 27th, Christians around the world are invited to pray and fast for the most vulnerable and unprotected members of our culture, the unborn. The sad truth is that for many developing babies, a mother’s womb has become a dangerous place where life is destroyed through the violence of abortion rather than a haven where fragile life is protected, nurtured and loved. After giving thanks for our many blessings this Thanksgiving Thursday, please consider making your Saturday a day of prayer for this intention. Below are a few suggestions for the Vigil for Nascent Life:

Pray for the Defense of the Defenseless From the womb to the tomb (Prov. 24:11-12). Some suggestions include doing a short Bible study with your family about the value of God-given human life; taking some quiet time with God in a chapel or outdoors in His creation; joining together with your congregation for a specific prayer service for the protection of the unborn.

Fast for the Protection of the Unborn If you are able, please fast from one meal or the whole day, or fast from media (TV, internet, phone, radio). Fasting frees our minds of distractions and is a powerful prayer tool to keep us focused.

Stay Informed about Threats to the God-Given Right to Life Sign up for the Washington Update at

Take Action Make an impact…for Life!

1. Support a Pregnancy Care Center in your area. To find out more about these life-affirming ministries to women who are expecting a child, check out FRCs site:

2. Promote Foster Care and Adoption in your church. Check out, a ministry of Focus on the Family. Other ministries can be found at

3. Advocate for ethical stem cell research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) not only destroys human life, but it also wastes taxpayer dollars because the result is tumors, but no treatments. Adult Stem Cells offer an ethical and effective alternative. Life-affirming therapies using adult stem cells have already resulted in 73 different treatments in human patients. Visit FRCs dedicated site:, for some exciting video stories from real people who have benefited from ethical stem cell research.

Approval for Risky Human Embryonic Stem Cell Trial

by David Prentice

November 22, 2010

Advanced Cell Technology has apparently been given approval to begin experiments with human embryonic stem cells on patients with Stargardt disease, a rare eye disease than can lead to blindness. Few details are available at this point, although Robert Lanza, ACT’s chief scientist, has said that this series of experiments could begin after the first of the year and will include up to 12 patients and will test the safety of injecting cells into one of the patient’s eyes, with increasing doses of cells on successive patients. He also hopes to see some results within six weeks of injecting a patient’s eye.

Of course, one big concern regarding safety is the distinct possibility of tumor formation by embryonic stem cells, since that is their real forte. No details are available on whether ACT did large animal studies, purity of their experimental cell preparation, or how well the cells retain differentiation versus growing.

Polling on your child’s life?

by David Christensen

November 19, 2010

Its difficult how to respond to this news that a couple considering an abortion, has put the decision to an online poll. The article says that the vote as of yesterday was 23,840 to 5,978 to have the baby. Maybe the couple thinks they can get helpful feedback either from the vote, or from comments posted regarding their decision.

The article states theyve been struggling with the decision because of the loss of three babies during miscarriages:

She and her husband, Peter Arnold, began the online vote because she was still healing emotionally from the most recent of three miscarriages, she said. They weren’t sure whether she was ready for a baby.

But it seems to me that this is rather gladiatorial, granting the crowd a vote over this life or death decision. Pray they choose life, and that they are comforted by their obvious hurt over their previous lost children.

Gettysburg, 2013

by Robert Morrison

November 19, 2010

The City Fathers and, presumably, Mothers of Gettysburg are already planning their Sesquicentennial observance of the 150th anniversary of Lincolns Gettysburg Address. Although it wont arrive for another three years, the main address of the festive occasion will be delivered, God willing, by President Barack Obama.

Thats interesting. The city elders must be assuming that Mr. Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Or, if he decides not to run or is not re-elected, perhaps theyve concluded they want Barack Obama anyway. Its a college town, so perhaps we should not be too surprised.

President Lincoln was not the featured speaker at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, held on this day, November 19th, in 1863. That honor went to Edward Everett, the most famous orator in America. In the midst of an already long and bloody civil war, the committee that chose Everett was sending a message. This former president of Harvard, former Secretary of State, was indeed a distinguished man who could be relied upon to do nothing unseemly on this solemn occasion.

Town residents, after all, had only recently been able to return to their homes. The summer air had been putrid with the smell of decaying flesh and the burning bodies of horses killed by the hundreds in the three days of battle.

Edward Everett had been the vice presidential candidate of the Constitutional Union party in 1860; in effect, he had been an opponent of Mr. Lincoln. To invite him to be the primary speaker was a little like inviting Sarah Palin to share the stage with Mr. Obama.

Lincoln gave no hint of being insulted. There is no record of his having said anything the least critical of the organizing committee or of Mr. Everetts invitationbefore or after the event.

Lincoln was happy to add what he might have called his poor mite. And what a mite it was. The 272 words of Lincolns Gettysburg Address used to be memorized by school children in America. At one time, newspaper columnists would be happy to point out that a candidate for high office had learned Lincolns short speech by heart.

Instead, we have today the thrill that goes up and down commentator Chris Matthews leg when Barack Obama speaks. Or, we have Nicholas Kristof of the once-powerful New York Times gushing about how Mr. Obama can recite, in a perfect Arabic accent, the words of the Muslim call to prayer.

Let me make bold to say that the world will little note nor long remember what Mr. Obama says on that important occasion. Thats because the world is not noting what he says now.

Heres a challenge: Ask a friend, preferably a supporter of the President, to quote a single line from the Inaugural Address of January 20, 2009. Or from his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech. Or from his 2010 State of the Union Address.

He was elected largely on the basis of his incomparable speaking ability, we are told. But what does he say? No one can tell you.

Heres what Mr. Obama said in Springfield, Illinois, on the 200th Anniversary of Lincolns birth:

It is wonderful to be back in Springfield, the city where I got my start in elected office, where I served for nearly a decade, and where I launched my candidacy for President two years ago, this week - on the steps of the Old State Capitol where Abraham Lincoln served and prepared for the presidency.

It was here, nearly one hundred and fifty years ago, that the man whose life we are celebrating today bid farewell to this city he had come to call his own. On a platform at a train station not far from where we’re gathered, Lincoln turned to the crowd that had come to see him off, and said, “To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything.” Being here tonight, surrounded by all of you, I share his sentiments.

But looking out at this room, full of so many who did so much for me, I’m also reminded of what Lincoln once said to a favor-seeker who claimed it was his efforts that made the difference in the election. Lincoln asked him, “So you think you made me President?” “Yes,” the man replied, “under Providence, I think I did.” “Well,” said Lincoln, “it’s a pretty mess you’ve got me into. But I forgive you.”

It is a humbling task, marking the bicentennial of our 16th President’s birth - humbling for me in particular, I think, for the presidency of this singular figure in so many ways made my own story possible.

Isnt it wonderful to know that those 630,000 Union and Confederate dead did not die in vain? That Lincolns own martyrs death combined with those fallen soldiers to make possible the election of Barack Obama?

In the passage quoted above, just first 250 words of a lengthy speech, Mr. Obama manages to make eight references to himselfthis in an address ostensibly honoring the Great Emancipators birth.

Count the references to himself in Lincolns Gettysburg Address. There are none.

Maybe thats why Edward Everett had the grace to write the President: I should like to flatter myself that I came as close to the central meaning of the day in two hours as you did in two minutes.

Let Rhode Island Vote

by Christopher Plante

November 19, 2010

The fact that the people of Iowa, when allowed to vote, threw out three of the judges that had overreached their authority by mandating homosexual-marriage on all Iowans, is of great encouragement. Every time the people get to vote on the issue they choose to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Ordinary men and women, mothers and father, know that children have a right to know and be known by their mother and father, and when given the choice they protect marriage.

Rhode Islanders want to have the opportunity to vote on marriage as well. In a public opinion poll conducted in August of this year over 80 percent of eligible voters polled stated they want the marriage issue on the ballot, irrespective of their personal beliefs on the issue. Rhode Islanders do not believe a small group of legislators, or worse judges, should decide such a crucial issue. We have had the opportunity to vote on ports, casinos, and even changing the name of the State; Rhode Islanders want to vote on marriage. And this is not new, public opinion polls conducted in June of 2009 and again in December of that year returned very similar results, with well over 34 of the respondents saying, Put it on the ballot.

The National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island will make every effort to insure that Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly hear and follow the voice of the people.

This is particularly crucial given the economic morass that Rhode Island still faces; this is no time to bog down our State government with an issue that impacts less than 5 percent of the population. According to the Providence Journal, October 17, 2010, For example, projected state budget gaps run above 10 percent through fiscal 2015. For the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2011, the forecast deficit is $320 million, largely because federal stimulus money that has supported the last three budgets is running out. That fiscal 2012 budget is the first one that will be crafted by the governor and General Assembly that take office in January. The projected shortfalls get worse as time goes by. The gaps are $416 million in fiscal year 2013, $457 million in fiscal 2014 and $536 million for fiscal 2015.

Even Governor-elect Chafee understands the challenge he faces. According to the Journal on November 7, 2010, A day after Rhode Island voters elected him their next governor, Lincoln D. Chafee stood in front of a bank of reporters in his Warwick campaign headquarters taking questions. Was this redemption? one television reporter asked, for losing his 2006 reelection bid to the U.S. Senate? Chafee paused. Then grinned. To inherit 12-percent unemployment? A $360-million budget deficit? The crowd, including a dozen campaign workers, chuckled. I dont look at it as redemption, Chafee said. I like a challenge.

Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly must not bog down the State government with the divisive and grid-locking issue of homosexual-marriage. Instead they should heed the voice of the people who elected them and put the homosexual-marriage question on the ballot.

Common Ground for Social Conservatives and Libertarians?

by Robert Morrison

November 18, 2010

Who says Libertarians and Social Conservatives cannot find common ground? I had the pleasure of speaking this morning with Greg from Louisville. Greg was a caller to Bill Bennetts Morning in America program. I was being interviewed by my dear friend, guest host Seth Leibsohn (listen to the full audio from the program below). I pointed out that the main federal family planning programTitle Xcosts us billions. The money does not go directly to fund Planned Parenthoods killing machine. But it does indirectly fund an outfit that kills 350,000 unborn children every year. Thats nearly the population of Minneapolis. Title X doesnt fund the killing, only the killers.

Greg claimed to be a militant Libertarian (Im pro-choice on everything). He amended that slightly to say, non-violent Libertarian. Then he went on to say that while he supported much of what Planned Parenthood does, he agrees that it should be de-funded. First, he said, because millions of Americans should not be taxed to support something they morally oppose. Second, he added, it should be de-funded because its unconstitutional.

Well, I was happy to get such strong support from Greg of Louisville. I greeted him as a principled and honest man. Why should American taxpayers have to pay more than $400 million every year to Planned Parenthood? Why should we provide a salary of $400,000 to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood? Thats as much as the President of the United States is paid. Thats ten times the average yearly income of American families.

Of course, Ill bet Greg from Louisville has not really delved into what Planned Parenthood actually does. Their primary purpose is to get young people involved in sex outside of marriage. This has had a devastating effect on minority communities, where most of Planned Parenthood facilities are located. The breakdown of the black family is a national tragedy.

Also a tragedy is what Planned Parenthood does on and near Americas campuses. Dr. Miriam Grossman has courageously cried out against the soullessness of the hook-up culture on campus. This compassionate psychiatrist knows that Planned Parenthood never provides condoms for the broken hearts.

This evil enterprise has given us 52 million abortions, 65 million sexually transmitted diseases, and an out-of-wedlock birthrate nearing 40%.

President Eisenhower was asked back in 1959 if the federal government should set up so-called family planning clinics nationwide. I cant think of a more inappropriate role for the federal government, Ike replied. No wonder they call those Happy Days. And Ike was a moderate Republican. But in 1970, President Nixon signed the disastrous Family Planning and Reproductive Health Act. That opened the sluice gates of federal funding for Planned Parenthood and their cohorts.

Starting in 1981, President Reagan called for zeroing out Title X. He took that principled stance eight years in a row. He wanted no federal funding of this immoral activity. Every year, unfortunately, liberals in Congress put the money back in the federal budget.

President Obama went before the Planned Parenthood convention almost a year before he went before his own Democratic Party convention. That was especially regrettable, since he should know better. He ought to know about the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, how founder Margaret Sanger cooked up a Negro Ministers Project as a cover for her eugenicist plans. Today, black women undergo abortions at three times the rate of white women. No wonder Jesse Jacksonbefore he became politically correctcalled abortion black genocide.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Barack Obama said he and Michelle would teach their daughters morals. Good for them. But the First Family had better hope that Planned Parenthood doesnt get to their daughters first.

Planned Parenthood teaches young people dont let anyone cheat you out of an orgasm.

And thats not all they teach them. In every way, Planned Parenthood wants to get at the kids and get around their parents.

More than twenty years ago, as we pro-family representatives were pleading with Congress to sustain President Reagans restrictions on Planned Parenthood, we wanted parents at the very least to be informed whenever Planned Parenthood or their ilk gave contraceptives to minors. Planned Parenthood squealed that President Reagans rule was a squeal rule.

Even liberal commentator Jeff Greenfield could see through that lie. He told us at the time: You never had a chance in the media. They were toeing the Planned Parenthood line. But I have a 16-year old daughter, and Id want to know. Every loving parent would want to know.

Killing is not charity. Leading young people into temptation is not educational. Planned Parenthood is neither charitable nor educational. Lets X-out Title X now. If this intrusive, immoral, and damaging activity is a constitutional exercise of the federal governments powers, what can we say is not?

>>>Listen to Bob Morrison with Seth Leibsohn on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America<<<

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

October 2010 «

» December 2010