The Andre Controversa Show With Special Guests Joe Scheidler, Tryon Lewish, and Eric Burlison

Joe Scheidler is the national director of the Pro-life Action League. Tonight will feature a pro-life panel discussing the life of Bernard Nathanson. During the second hour, we will be doing a panel on the Healthcare Compact, a multistate initiative to override Obamacare.

We will ahve several panelists; among them Texas State Rep. Tryon Lewish, who represents District 81 in West Texas and Eric Burlison, Missouri state rep from District 136, and sponsor of healthcare compact legislation in Missouri.

Call in at 949-203-8421 or stream here.

Host Andre Traversa, Co-host Jim Lagnese

The Hypocrisy Of The Des Moines Register and Many Liberals Too

While I expect nothing less from The Des Moines Register, I would have thought that with the new editor, who is from the mid-west, would temper, at least a little bit, the far left "liberal" bias that exists at that publication.

In today's Opinion section of said paper, there is an article about the house bill that would expand castle doctrine. For some reason, the liberal editorial board (is that redundant?) has decided an all out attack on the second amendment. They seem not only to take umbrage with Castle Doctrine, but also with Shall Issue laws. They believe that the state should allow local control over gun rights. They also seem to believe that liberal guns laws, which extend from our constitutional right, which is an enumerated natural right, not dreamed up, are somehow wrong and will lead to mayhem. Such has not been the case as it has been researched.

To further inflame things, they claim that the case in Tucson should raise a red flag and cause us to question any "liberal" gun laws. Such straw men will not stand the test from the Register editorial board or such ersatz religious leaders such as Carlos Jayne. The incident in Tucson was perpetrated by a mad man, who had lied on the federal form he had to fill out to purchase the weapon he used. Furthermore, he is crazy and it is one incident taken out of context to support an anti-gun agenda. If we use the liberal's logic for other unsafe and dangerous consequences in our society, what would that look like? Should we ban spoons because they make people fat? Should we ban cars because more drunk drivers kill people than guns? I don't see the "liberals" clamoring for any of that.

What makes them true hypocrites, is that in the same opinion section, we have articles about same sex marriage and how it is a universal right. You can read my opinion of this type of topic here, here and here. Marriage is not something that is defined in the constitution, but somehow these progressive agendists believe it is something that should not be regulated by the states. It should be universal. The same with abortion, which is nowhere promoted of denied in the constitution (Although I will make a libertarian stand against it based on the Declaration of Independence), but is a sacrament of their cause. While I cannot make a libertarian argument against gay marriage at all, I do believe states do regulate marriage and if you read my piece above, you can read my solution. That said, being armed is a natural right, in my opinion, not subject to the whims of who is in power at any given time. political winds shift, liberty should remain a constant if not increasing. The problem is, many, if not most progressives don't have the balls to live in the real world and wish to make it safe for all at the continuing expense of our liberties. Liberties to them mean actions free from perceived consequence, which is really libertine, not libertarian. I would also suggest that they believe in the power of the state as a tool for the submission of people to the will of their tribe. My question is, what makes then so sure their religion is any better than any other?

In the end, their agenda is one of a nihilistic statism bred from a self-assured, yet delusional belief that risk is something that is anathema to living in this world. It extends to everything they promote, whether it's universal healthcare, gun control, healthy food or whatever. They do not believe people are or can be responsible for themselves and that the government is needed as a surrogate guardian to protect us from ourselves. Furthermore, they have no compunction about using the force of government to force people to submit to their will. Truly, they are not liberals at all, but progressive, Fabian statists st best. They are also hypocrites, that are inconsistent in their application of liberty as it suits them. Theirs is not an objective view.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Heisman Trophy Winner Takes a Stand

He chooses life.


Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy winner and quarterback for the University of Florida will appear in an advertisement during the superbowl that is paid for by the group Focus on the Family.

The ad features Tebow and his mother, and she discusses her choice for life. Of course, people are already taking sides at his school:

“It’s a big coming-out party for Tim Tebow in terms of moving from athletic superstar to the political realm,” said Daniel Smith, UF associate professor of political science and faculty adviser to Gators for Choice.

Once the ad airs on national television, it might cause some interesting discussions on college campuses while also rallying the pro-choice community, Smith added. The commercial's content might also have an effect on Tebow’s fan base.

“When you are an athlete and you put yourself out in the public sphere when it comes to politics, you have a good chance of alienating half your fan support,” Smith said.

Some are even itching for a fight, and it seems to me ironic that a law student would want to prohibit free speech and personal beliefs:

Karen Middlekauff, a UF law student and the president of Outlaw, an organization for College of Law LGBT students, said she believes that Tebow is still a representative of UF, and he has chosen to represent a viewpoint that shouldn’t be associated with the university.

“Focus on the Family is a very well-known group for speaking out against LGBT issues,” she said. “A lot of people know that.”

The commercial is also highlights the strength of Tebow’s religious beliefs, something the general public may not be aware of, she said.

“The UF community itself knows that he is very religious and he’s done a lot of humanitarian work,” Middlekauff said. “I don’t know if the public knows that. They’ll know after this.”

AC Stokes, the UF director of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs, said Tebow is probably aware that he is being used for a political purpose and that he will now be associated with Focus on the Family’s viewpoints.

“I got a call from an alumnus that was pretty outraged by the fact that Tim Tebow was going to be in this commercial,” Stokes said.

It seems to me that tolerance goes both ways. Form what I gather, Tim isn't disrespecting the LGBT groups or even commenting on them. His association with Focus on the family is purely to celebrate life, something everyone should be behind, and even if he didn't approve of the gay lifestyle, so what. People are entitled to their opinions, no? Of course Tim has support from some people at the University of Florida:

Camille Jacobs, a UF junior and member of Campus Crusade for Christ, said she was excited to hear that Tebow has this opportunity. 
 
“He’s just standing up for what he believes in,” Jacobs said, “and no matter what you believe in, it’s going to be controversial.” 
 
She said students of the Gator Nation will probably be behind him “whether they’re Christian or not.”
 
“He wouldn’t say things just because it kind of sounds good or will stir up trouble,” she said. “People know he’s speaking straight from the heart.”

Whatever the case, this will be a polarizing issue for many, those that are pro-life, and those that are pro-death. Those that say they are pro-choice just don't want to admit they are pro-death or really don't understand the consequences of what they believe. I can't wait to take a side.


Thank you for reading this blog.

Barbara Boxer Continues Senatorial Ignorance

If it wasn't ignorant enough that Harry Reid tried paint the republicans as modern variants of proslavery democrats because they don't support Obamacare, now we have Barbara Boxer, the liberal sfacime senator from California making the assertion that denying the funding of abortion is the same as denying paying for a man's prescription for viagra.

Obviously Boxer doesn't have the facilities to recognize the differences in both the purpose of each and the consequences. Abortion is killing a human being, most often because it's an inconvenience. In fact, over 97%.

Viagra is for the purpose of making an impotent man have an erection. Generally erections are for the purpose of creating human beings. Most men that use viagra are probably over 40, if not 50. Generally speaking, viagra enhances a man's self-esteem, not to mention his partner's appreciation. Just ask Enzyte Bob. :)

On the other hand, the consequences of abortion are not so rosey. Many women who get abortions suffer depression, loss, and grieve. They have killed their own and no matter why they got it done, the effects are life long. Many women that get abortions have problems conceiving because of the physical effects of having the abortion because of damage to the uterus.

Neither abortion or viagra have a place in the healthcare debate. One, abortion isn't healthcare, it is death.  The american people shouldn't have to subsidize death. I also think that if a man want to get a woody, even if he cannot not without pharmaceutical help, he should pay for it himself. Americans don't need to be responsible for what happens with that either.

This is just another case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy thinking that the democrats are using because they are desparate. Their backs are to the wall because the american people do not want Obamacare, they don't want a socialized government of healthcare and in spite of this, the dems are intent on shoving this don our throats, even at the peril of their jobs. The lesson that is lost on them is that emotional appeals are the last refuge of morons.

So, did Boxer act alone, or did she get marching orders from Barack or MoBama? I suppose we'll never know, but in this case, she was following Hairy Dweeb's lead and did this one from the heart. Still, she's wrong, as usual, and again, the dems keep digging for lower lows.

The only conclusion I can make from all of this is that  the dems must be real true believers in socialism and marxism. There's no other way to explain why they would pull these stunts when they have such opposition from the american people. They would rather believe they are right, rather than listening to their constituencies or re-examining their values. Either way, they probably will be done next November. While this may seem to bode well for the GOP, I wouldn't put all my hope with them either. Not just yet. They have a very bad habit of forgetting where they came from and become stranger lovers as well. If it's any indication, Palin has hinted at a third party run (she's within 1% of Obama she's not even running). While it may devide the GOP for a dem win in 2012, it may also herald a new party such as when Lincoln won in 1860 with the new Republican party. Personally, I think it is time for a new party. Michael Steele & Co. have served us poorly.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Picking up the mantle of a murderer

As much as this photo shows a caring doctor in medical setting, it is purely for effect from the New York Times, trying to show this murderer as some sort of caring saint.

Dr. Carhart sees the need for late term abortions, and will perform them in the absence of his friend Dr. George R. Tiller.

As someone that was born 12 weeks premature, as a rationalist and as a christian,  I find it repulsive that someone would want to kill a baby that obviously could live on his/her own. I find it repulsive that anyone would want to kill any baby. This guy is no saint and a few of his employees quit when they found out the nature of the expansion of his practice. While I don't prescribe the fate Dr Tiller got to Dr. Carhart, I do believe abortion should be against the law. No matter what, Dr. Carhart will face the same cosmic justice Dr. Tiller faced at his final exam, and nothing we can do on this earth matches god's justice.

This is one more example of the out of touch mentality that the left promulgates, even in the evidence that they are not only wrong, but that they are out of step with the majority of Americans. These members of the government sponsored media are fomenting their positions through the government, with Obama at the helm. Think I am wrong? Read this.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Mr. Obama's Epitaph:

The Catholic Church Finally Takes a Stand

Have the Kennedy's lost their touch?

Bishop Tobin of the Providence Diocese has told Patrick Kennedy he cannot receive communion because of his stance on abortion. The bishop has also instructed the priests in the diocese not to give Kennedy communion.

While some may not see the relevance, but to a catholic it it is heartening to see the Church put it's money where it's mouth is. The Church has looked the other way too long with parishioners, often famous and infamous, have violated not only church doctrine, but human decency with and by their actions. The Kennedy's have often been the beneficiaries of such hypocritical largesse and I am glad to see it come to an end. So, when will Pelosi get the treatment? Can you think of others?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obamacare: virtue of the needy, death to the unborn

Bishop Harry Jackson lays out his case that obamacare is reverse classism and that abortion, which would is funded by the government, affects blacks disproportionately and that people, through taxation and tithe would be supporting abortion under Obama's plan, even if they are against abortion. This man is a different kind of Reverend Jackson, and one I would support.

H/T Nickie Goomba.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Father Vince, Why Do You Support Obama?

Father Vince, why do you support Obama? I wonder what the pope would say, not that you care. I love ya Vince, but you are on the wrong side on this one. Liberation Theology's time has come and gone. 

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/10/video-planned-infanticide.html

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput speaks the truth

As a practicing Catholic, I have to applaud Archbishop's Chaput's speaking out on this subject. I would add though, I would go a step further: Catholics that twist doctrine to support this pro-abortion candidate Obama are not only wrong, but hypocrites. Obama supports abortion in the last trimester, and advocates killing the baby even if it is born alive. Obama's views are so heinous that any Catholic that knows this and still supports him should be excommunicated. We are better off without you.

Update: Ok. Excommunication is extreme. Consistent with Catholic doctrine, they can be denied communion. 

Thank you for reading this blog.

Locus of Control: Socialism vs. Individualism Part I

Locus of control is a psychology term which refers to a person's belief about what causes the good or bad results in their life. An internal locus means that a person sees themselves as responsible for good or bad things that happen in their life because they control their own lives. Socialists focus on an external locus where people are not in control of their lives and the results, good or bad do not come from the individual, but that the control in there lives came from outside forces and in the case of socialism, from a collective. This comparison may seem facile to some, but it is direct, relevant and correlative. This external locus of control was prominent in past cultures and society when the church had much more influence in people's lives and most countries were monarchies. People had little or no say in the lives, were poorly if at all educated, and  where at the mercy of authoritarian whim. 

In the last 200 or so years, we have seen that democracy has replaced monarchies and people have become more independent, educated, and more importantly, informed. In the case of the United States, a rugged individualism replaced feudal and ecclesiastical supplication, peonage and darkness. We had the resources for man to expand his horizons and define his boundaries through sheer will, hard work, and risk. With this came the responsibility for success or failure. The locus of control turned inward. 

We now find ourselves at a point in time where there is transition again. Socialism promulgates the external locus of control, therefore responsibility, and affects to people's lives. Whenever you hear a socialist, or as I call them in today's instance, Neo-Coms, it is always someone or something outside the individual that is responsible for the bad things that may happen to them, and the good things as well. Everyone is a victim. For instance, the wealthy take a beating in socialist circles. They have been blamed for just about everything from the latest credit and financial crunch, to why people do not have healthcare, which is not the issue, but rather who will pay your healthcare bills. Conversely, when good things happen, it's the community that did it, as in it takes a village. 

The layer beneath this mechanism is that socialism and or better put, agents of socialism are dealing with an increasingly ignorant population, in spite of the overload of information, a society that has forgotten and is ignorant about themselves, how they got there, and what made and makes them great. Call it the death of American Exceptionalism. Steve Deace would say we lost our vision. We are both correct. Are socialism and it's agents responsible for this or are they just taking advantage of it? You could argue both. The point is that people are becoming less self-sufficient, self-reliant, have more information available, but cannot discern truth. The rugged individual is becoming extinct and socialism in all it's collective glory is on the rise. I will continue this thread on Friday in Part II of this article subtitled, "Political and Social Entropy". 

Thank You for reading this blog

Hypocrisy, Abortion, and Christianity

I was thinking today, which is always a dangerous and perilous venture, about Bristol Palin and all the hubbub with the Neo-Coms over the Pro-Life values of the Palin family. A lot of people ascribe to be Christian, yet find a way to say they are pro-choice and come away thinking it is somehow compatible. I am sure you have read with wonderment of the brouhaha with the Vampiress herself, Bella Pelosi, go through convoluted logic trying to justify her pro-choice stance as Roman Catholic. Anyway, I just want you to know that while it is possible to take a pro-life position from a secular standpoint, it is impossible, as a Christian, as a Jew, or as a Muslim, to be pro-choice and be consistent with your religion. This is not a judgement, it’s a fact. At the very least, be honest and tell me you are picking and choosing what  you believe and what you do not. Of course the Neo-Coms have plenty of company in this area, some of which are even “reverends”, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It was their cost of entry into the temple of the Neo-Coms. So if you are pro-choice, at the very least be intellectually honest and tell the truth.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama on abortion: He wants it both ways

During yesterday's question and answer with the Reverend Rick Warren, Obama said "he's pro-choice and supports Roe v. Wade, his goal is to reduce the number of abortions in America." That's like saying I am for drunk driving but I want to reduce the number of drunk driving deaths in America. But then again, this is the same candidate that said he favored abortion because if one of his daughters made a mistake, he wouldn't want them punished with a baby. This man is wrong on this issue morally, politically, and spiritually. As for the Rev. Rick Warren, I don't know the man, but he called both McCain and Obama his friends, and both patriots. I disagree with him in that regard. If Obama is a patriot, we could do with fewer of his type. 

Thank you for reading this blog.