Find God In 60 Days

(H/T: Is Anybody There?

(Originally posted to the Thoughts of a Regular Guy blog.)

Wallace Withdraws From Senate Race

I've written before about U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wallace, one of the several conservative candidates seeking to prevent the nomination of liberal Republican congressman Mark Kirk (Kirk has been endorsed by my legislative opponent, Sandy Cole). Kirk was one of only eight Republican Congressmen who voted for Cap & Trade, and is also pro-abortion, pro-gay "marriage", pro gun control, and opposed the surge in Iraq.

The U.S. Senate seat in question is that currently held by Senator Roland Burris, who was appointed by now-impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich, following the election of President Obama. Coincidentally, it is the same seat once held by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the 19th century.

But today, the last day for candidates to file their petitions and candidacy paperwork, Eric Wallace has announced that he will not be a candidate:

Eric Wallace, conservative candidate for Il U.S Senate, formally announces today (Monday, November 2, 2009) that despite meeting minimum signature requirements he will not, at this time, seek his party’s (R) nomination. Wallace states, “While the goal continues to be the coalescing of our efforts behind a candidate committed to upholding conservative values—I have decided that it is in the best interest of the conservative movement that I not run at this time. The most important issue here is not my candidacy, but that the conservative principles and values that our campaign has been espousing across the state continue to gain momentum; and that we find a person to consolidate around who will champion this cause.

I know that a lot of people whom I greatly respect have been supporters of Wallace's candidacy, but I'm relieved to see this, because, as Wallace himself states, we have too many conservative candidates to oppose just one well-funded liberal. I salute Dr. Wallace for his decision.

Other conservative candidates include Patrick Hughes, Robert Zadek, and John Arrington. I've had the pleasure of meeting Zadek and Arrington in the course of my own campaigning, including sharing the stage with Arrington at a candidate forum just this past Saturday. I can say that I've been very favorably impressed by both Arrington and Zadek. Hughes comes with a substantial amount of his own money and the endorsements of several high-profile pro-life leaders, so I'm favorably disposed towards him, but I have not yet been impressed by him or by his campaign. I'm still waiting.

(Originally posted to the Thoughts of a Regular Guy blog.)

The Regular Guy Returns

This blog is not dead. It's just been a tad neglected.

OK, rather more than a tad. Thanks to Paladin for keeping things going in my negligence.

For those who might be interested, my legislative campaign continues apace. I collected more than twice the required number of signatures, and filed them with the other requisite paperwork with the Board of Elections in Springfield on the first day of filing, last Monday. I have a number of activities coming up this month, with more details on my campaign website, where donations to a comprehensively conservative candidate are still being accepted.

The NY-23 race proves one thing: liberal Republicans are liars. In this respect: they tell us that the purpose of a political party is to elect its candidates. This is not true, and they know it. The real purpose of a political party is to advance its principles. When the party nominates candidates who don't believe in its principles, it is defeating its own purpose. But the liberal Republicans understand this fully well; given a choice between endorsing a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, the liberal Republican will choose their principles over their party every time.

If you're in the Chicago area tomorrow and love good music, you could certainly do worse than a visit to St. John Cantius Church, where they'll be celebrating the Feast of All Souls with the Mozart Requiem Mass as a solemn high mass in the Extraordinary Form with full choir and orchestra. 7:30 pm.

More soon.

Woe to you, Faux Catholic, Hypocrite...

[guest commentary by Paladin]

For those of you who're more used to my usual mild tone, I apologize in advance... but I am seriously ticked off.

From the Indispensable LifeSiteNews:

HINSDALE, Illinois, October 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Hinsdale, Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.

Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.

This woman is corrupt. Let's call a spade a spade. She may've slid into this corruption through "good intentions" (Hell need not go to Menards or Builder's Squarem for paving stones for its inroads, y'know), but she's a hypocrite--in the worst sense of the word, and of the highest order. This woman contributes to the torture and death of unborn children, and still cravenly clings to the title, not only of "Catholic" (which is a big enough lie), but of "Catholic religious sister".

I see. So, just as the modern world demands that we allow a Greenpeace member to carve their initials into living beached whales with dull, rusty knives while still demanding Greenpeace membership rights... just as the modern world demands that someone who boils kittens alive for sheer enjoyment can still be a card-carrying member of PETA... just so, does the world demand that the Catholic Church not reject this wayward woman and her demonic volunteer duties. I see.

At least the members of the Culture of Death are consistent... right?

So... at least I can take consolation in the fact that her religious superior will, at very least, denounce her and expel her from the order, right?

Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."

Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.

Wow.

Seriously... give me a good, honest atheist and/or relativist, any day of the week. But betrayal--especially if that betrayal involves a grandmotherly smile as she walks the women past the mean and cruel pro-lifers, a kindly pat on the shoulder as she tells the woman to "be a brave girl" as she submits her body to violation and her child to dismemberment, and a sweet and humble suggestion to drink some hot Linden tea if she has any cramps afterward--makes me want to spit rusty nails.

I tremble for this woman on Judgment Day. But in the meantime, might I offer my own (perhaps isolated) plea that she physically GET THE **** OUT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, so that her body at least matches her soul which abandoned the Church long ago??

Diplomatic Dithering, and Other Evils

[guest commentary by Paladin]

At the risk of putting my foot in a pile of unsavoury stuff: apparently, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has felt it necessary to congratulate the President of Death for his (yes, I still blink incredulously when I hear it) Nobel Peace Prize (h/t LifeSiteNews.com):

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), issued the following statement, congratulating President Barack Obama on being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize:

"In the name of the Catholic Bishops of the United States, I would like to offer congratulations to President Barack Obama on his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. As he has graciously said, much of the work of realizing a more peaceful and just world for all persons and nations remains to be done; but the prize was given because as President of the United States he has already changed the international conversation. [...]"

Okay. I know that it's the modus operandi of the USCCB (or its mouthpieces) to be diplomatic in all circumstances (at least to those on the political left), and I'm certainly no strong advocate of turning rhetorical flamethrowers on people; but, for the love of all that's holy, why say anything at all??? Does anyone truly think that the rest of the world was waiting, with hands on hips and tapping foot, for the USCCB to add their comments to the body politic? They had every opportunity simply to keep quiet and let the absurdity speak for itself... but no: they had to try to invest the moment with some "gravitas" (but, fortunately in this case, the USCCB hasn't much of it to invest). Argh. Common sense, anyone?

The Maltese Pigeon

[guest commentary by Paladin]

I usually don't like to exert even a tiny bit of bandwidth to give (*ack* *ahem* *choke*) Ambassador Douglas Kmiec, chief faux-Catholic apologist for the President of Death and heir-apparent of the Sir Richard Rich "Sell My Soul for Wales" legacy (thanks to Fr. Z for the phrase), the media attention he appears to crave so desperately. But I did need to pass on one of the best quotes on the matter that I'd read in a long time.

From the ever-admirable LifeSiteNews, and from the pen/keyboard of Human Life International's Joseph Meaney:

Perhaps even more troubling than Kmiec’s obsequiousness in accepting these pathetic lines of reasoning is how he describes being intellectually seduced by President Obama. The ambassador has bought--hook, line, and sinker--the false definition of ‘dialogue’ which always entails a serious, thoughtful pose and a polite nod of the head, and results in the even greater acceleration of the culture of death. Of course they "listen" when they’re in power! Then they do exactly what they were going to do and people like Kmiec get in line and become their apologists.

How long, O Lord...?"

Great Moments in Blogging

Compiled by Jerry Agar (with a little help from yours truly):

Not so long ago in America if it wasn’t on Walter Cronkite’s news report or in the pages of the New York Times, it wasn’t news. Most of the rest of the electronic and print reporters and commentators relied on those two entities to show them what was important.

A person who knew something the big news operations did not, especially if their news contrasted with the way the media chieftains saw the world, was labeled as a crank and dismissed.

The cost of setting up a competing news operation was a barrier to entry only a select few could penetrate. It is so cost prohibitive to start a daily paper that former KGB General Oleg Kalugin told me that it was the only piece of the “long march through the institutions” the Russians were unable to achieve.

No more.

The recent explosive story exposing the depths some ACORN employees were willing to sink to in order to thwart “the man” is the latest example of how powerful a tool the Internet is to the little guy and gal.

With the help of local bloggers listed below I have compiled a list of the “10 Great Events in the Rise of the New Media.”

We have tried to make a list of transformative moments.The Virginia Tech shootings, the landing on the Hudson and the 7/7 Tube bombings in London were initially reported by cell phone and blog, showing the power of on-site reporting with new media, but were perhaps not seminal moments, as they would have been reported anyway, and quickly, by the mainstream media (MSM).

Read the rest!

Relatively Speaking, Redux

[guest commentary by Paladin]

Waaaay back in the spring of this year, I posted a rather modest post about moral relativism (which had a surprising amount of traffic). Given the arrival of some new champions of moral relativism in our comment boxes, I thought I'd open the idea up again... and give the poor, overburdened (but excellent) "Abortion" thread some room to breathe!

One case in point: our honoured guest, Mr. Robert Schwartz, once wrote, in reply to our esteemed host:

Indeed: I find it mildly amusing that in a single breath you confess reluctance to strike up a contract with me due to your supposition that I am untrustworthy, yet simultaneously assert that I'm honest about my position!

That's as good a starting place as any.

Moral relativism, when taken to its logical conclusion (or applied consistently), cannot help but collapse on itself, in a sense--especially when the proponent also claims to hold to some sort of moral code. In this case: the fact that a relativist could be up-front and honest about his relativism is (while that honesty is a good thing, in and of itself) something of an "accident of the moment". Let's grant that Mr. X, a moral relativist, currently holds himself to a standard of "honesty", which we'll assume (for now) means, "I will not intentionally deceive, and/or give false information." Given the starting premise (of absolute moral relativism), I personally see nothing that would prevent Mr. X from dropping that "honesty" standard like a hot potato, should the right combination of factors/incentives move him sufficiently... and there's no assurance that Mr. X will even be "good" enough to let others know of his new-found rejection of truth-telling and honesty.

In short: if the only reason Mr. X is "honest" is that it pleases him to be so at the moment (and if there's no reason to suppose that this won't change for whatever reason, at any time), then I really can't blame anyone else for not being willing to enter into a contract with Mr. X; his honesty is "an accident of the moment", which is as fickle as would be a liar from the start.

Ironically enough, this "accidental attitude of honesty" is also only recognizable by reliance on an objective standard of truth! A true relativist would not balk at being skeptical of the very perceptions of reality of others (i.e. taking a knife and stabbing an innocent child on the street is actually murdering a real, externally-existing person, rather than being an exercise of a somewhat energetic day-dream within his head).

Question: if you embrace moral relativism, then why do you not also embrace radical relativism (e.g. solipsism--the idea that you are the only person whose existence is certain, and that all other persons/things are more-or-less persistent hallucinations, figments of your vibrant imagination, etc.)? There's no such thing as "evidence against solipsism", any more than there's evidence against "absolute moral relativism", right?

P.S. Robert, sorry about losing track of so many of your points, and (good/challenging) questions! The frenzy at work/home has subsided somewhat, but I'm still picking up a dizzying number of pieces; I'll try to get to some of your earlier comments if I can, but feel free to re-ask them if I "space out" about them for too long...

Blogger Announces Run for Illinois House

No, I don't mean me, I'm already a candidate.

Well-known milblogger Blackfive is seeking election to an open house seat in the Illinois 41st District.

UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention that that race already had two conservative candidates, including Peter Breen, of the Thomas More Society.

Another Look At Moral Relavatism

The President's buddies at ACORN offer still more advice on how to run criminal organizations, with a little counsel on how to get away with (literally!) murder thrown in:

Nadler To Introduce Bill To Repal DOMA

I'd be interested to hear from every congressional candidate in the nation, for both the House and Senate, how they would vote on this bill:

This morning, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-New York) announced he will introduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This law defines marriage for federal purposes and ensures that states are not forced to recognize alternate definitions. DOMA passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said, "The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman. DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.

"The Defense of Marriage Act anticipated the assault that homosexual activists would inflict upon marriage. Through DOMA, the will of the people is honored, as evidenced in the 39 states that have passed laws protecting marriage."

Shari Rendall, CWA's Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said, "Homosexual activists and their congressional supporters are making the outrageous claim that protecting marriage is a form of discrimination. But the reverse is true -- failing to protect marriage and overturning marriage laws will result in reverse discrimination against people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman."

All the staff, cast and crew here at Thoughts of a Regular Guy would like to welcome the gay marriage issue back to the national agenda for another election cycle.

A New Abortion Post

I've been having an argument with two friends of mine over on Facebook, and I'm inviting them here to carry on the debate in my combox, where there are not such limitations on length of comments as there are at Facebook.

My basic premises:

1. That abortion entails the intentional taking of an innocent human life.
   
2. That the intentional taking of an innocent human life is morally wrong.
   
3. That it is a legitimate function of government to protect innocent human life.

Ergo, abortion is not a "right" and should be illegal.

This is a public discussion, all are invited to take part.

Can I Live

It's probably just my impression, but is it rappers who are doing the best pro-life songs these days?

The Butterfly Circus

[guest commentary by Paladin]

With many thanks and kudos and hat tips to Chelsea Zimmerman--an old friend of this blog whose "Reflections of a Paralytic" are (by any sane standard) a font of sanity in the mixed and muddied fields of the blogosphere: please do check out the following movie, available for free viewing online (20 min):

THE BUTTERFLY CIRCUS

The movie, a 20-minute submission for a competition at The Doorpost Film Project (which promotes films which inspire and build up, rather than degrade and tear down), stars award-winning Eduardo Verástegui ("Bella") and Doug Jones ("Pan's Labyrinth"), and debuting Nick Vujicic, who runs a mind-blowing and inspiring ministry. Seriously: go check up on Nick's site!)

To borrow a bit of text from the film's site:

At the height of the Great Depression, the showman of a renowned circus leads his troupe through the devastated American landscape, lifting the spirits of audiences along the way. During their travels they discover a man without limbs at a carnival sideshow, but after an intriguing encounter with the showman he becomes driven to hope against everything he has ever believed.

And to snitch a bit of comment from Chelsea:

Life with a disability is NOT without value, hope, meaning or purpose. You must watch this film!

The writer/producer of The Butterfly Circus tells me that the film

will be up for *over a year* to be enjoyed at http://www.thedoorpost.com…

It is part of a film competition for The Doorpost Film Project which is a project designed to empower filmmakers who want to bring messages of hope to the world.

This makes me curious to see the other movies in the competition! Voting is open now through September 16. Please click on the picture above to watch and vote for Butterfly Circus. It really is a beautiful film with a beautiful message of hope and the dignity of the human person!

Well? What are you waiting for? Get moving!

Congratulations, Duggars, Yet Again!

[guest commentary by Paladin]

For those of you who haven't yet heard, the Duggar Family (see here, here, and so on, for earlier posts about them) have been blessed with child #19 (who's currently in utero, and temporarily unavailable for comment)! God's blessings upon the new blessing, and upon his/her parents and siblings! Culture of death, take that! :)

(H/T: the heroic Jill Stanek)

Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

[guest commentary by Paladin]

I just learned (along with most of the world, who knew it hours before I did) that Ted Kennedy, the dissident Catholic senator from Massachusetts, died last night at his home.

I hate episodes like this. In the social/political order, this is a clear case of "addition by subraction", in that Senator Kennedy can no longer champion the culture of death; in the spiritual order, it's a time of fear and grief... since there's great reason to fear for his eternal soul. In your charity (and if your worldview allows), I ask you to pray for the soul of this sadly wayward man; he is a child of God, whose redemption was bought by Christ's agony and death on the cross, and our prayers (which go beyond time--see HERE for details) can make the difference between his salvation and damnation. He now knows the full horror of what he's done throughout his life and career; and if his soul is saved, he will have (by the grace of God) grieved for that evil far more than we could understand... and he will have joined his repentant tears and prayers to ours, in trying to undo those evil works.

Kyrie, eleison.

Why Oppose Homeschooling?

Why would anyone be opposed to parents teaching their own children at home? Possibly because it means that the children won't be taught liberal morality (H/T: Deo Gratias):

Opponents of home-schooling—and some of them are vehement—argue that it is socially divisive. Also, since it is regulated lightly or not at all, it is hard to tell whether children being taught at home are receiving an adequate education. “Unregulated home-schooling opens up the possibility that children will never learn about ... alternative ways of life,” writes Rob Reich of Stanford University. [Emphasis added.]

Bean Wins Award

My Congressional Representative, the Hon. Melissa Bean (D-IL), is the latest recipient of Michelle Malkin's new "Cone of Shame Award":

She billed her $25/person Chamber of Commerce pow-wow as a “town hall,” then had it changed after getting smoked out.

Then she hastily convened a telephone town hall, but didn’t notify constituents until the last minute.

Liberals lacking a sense of humor, and those who have not seen the movie UP, will not get the joke.

A Very Brief Reflection On The Eucharist

Last weekend, I was sitting in mass in the first or second row as usual, and this day I happened to be holding my seven-month-old son Michael during the Eucharistic Prayer. He's a "glasses grabber," and so I took off my glasses to avoid him getting them. Now, without my glasses I have really bad vision. 20-20? More like 20-400! That's no joke. And so at the moment of consecration, as I tried to look up to see the elevation of the Host, I realized that I was wholly unable to see the large Host in Father's hands. I could barely make out his arms; I could see nothing at all of what he was holding. And yet, even without being able to see what he was holding, I knew what it was. With no eyes to see, I still knew that he was holding up the body, blood, soul and divinity of our risen Lord. And I realized that, even with my glasses on, I wouldn't have been able to see what he was really holding anyway. It's only with eyes of faith that we perceive the realities of the mass.

This is post #1,900 to this blog

The Democratic Party -- What Might Have Been

A very interesting compare and contrast exercise (H/T: Ten Reasons):

On July 20, 1968 -- just weeks after RFK's death -- Eunice convened the first Special Olympics, a movement of dignity and hope for mentally disabled children. It was born of Eunice's love for her mentally disabled sister, Rosemary; her firm defence of the dignity of every human life; and her deep Catholic faith. Eunice and Sargent (who also founded the Peace Corps and was the architect of many of the Great Society programs for the poor) changed the way we think about people with special needs.

Almost a year to the day after the first Special Olympics, Ted Kennedy drove Mary Jo Kopechne to her death at Chappaquiddick, Mass. From that point on, two paths diverged from the Kennedy compound. The Senator took the ignoble path of indulgence and irresponsibility. The Shrivers used their fame and wealth for the service of others, especially those at the margins.

In the 1970s, the Shrivers were a major political force. Sargent was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1972, and subsequently entertained both presidential and gubernatorial bids. Meanwhile, Ted marinated in the Senate, finally running for president in 1980 without any ostensible reason for doing so other than the fact that, as a Kennedy, he was entitled to it.

The Shrivers represented the old Democratic Party -- economically liberal and culturally conservative. They were routed by the new Democratic Party -- economically liberal and culturally libertine -- of which Ted became the poster boy. The tortured relationship of the Catholic Church with the Democratic Party mirrored that cleavage. Eunice was the ideal of the Catholic in public life -- passionately committed to the poor, defender of the weak, prolife, morally upright and a woman of faith and family. But the party followed Ted.

The Shrivers were devout Catholics who lived their faith with integrity privately before bringing its implications to the public square. Before Alzheimer's took its toll on Sargent, he was a daily communicant, attending Mass either in Maryland or in Hyannis, Mass., a well-worn rosary often in hand. He shared his Marian devotion with his wife; in a statement upon Eunice's death, her family noted that "she was forever devoted to the Blessed Mother. May she be welcomed now by Mary to the joy and love of life everlasting, in the certain truth that her love and spirit will live forever."

Such lines will not be written of Ted Kennedy who, as one of America's most prominent Catholics, blazed the trail of making religious belief an entirely private matter. His debauchery was the opposite of the Shrivers' piety. Having broken up his own family, he degenerated into a dissoluteness that reached its nadir on Good Friday, 1991, when instead of doing the Stations of the Cross at the local parish, he took his son and nephew out for a night of bar-hopping and skirt-chasing. The details of Ted's behaviour that night were embarrassingly sordid. It gave rise to the joke that Senator Kennedy's religion was so private he refused to impose it on himself.

Be sure to read it all.

What Value On Life?

I saw this interesting piece in my local paper this morning:

The debate — OK, the shouting match — we are having over “health care reform” is about many things, including cost, who gets help and who does not and who, or what, gets to make that determination. Underlying it all is a larger question: Is human life something special? Is it to be valued more highly than, say, plants and pets? When someone is in a “persistent vegetative state” do we mean to say that person is equal in value to a carrot?

Are we now assigning worth to human life, or does it arrive with its own pre-determined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ, or disability?

The bottom line is not the bottom line. It is something far more profound. Our decisions regarding who will get help and who won’t are more than about bean-counting bureaucrats deciding if your drugs or operation will cost more than you are contributing to the U.S. Treasury.

The secular left claims we are evolutionary accidents who managed to crawl out of the slime and by “natural selection” stand erect and over millions of years outsmart our ancestors, the apes. If that is your belief, then you probably think health care should be rationed. Why spend lots of money to improve — or save — the life of someone who evolved from slime and has no special significance other than the “accident” of becoming human? Policies flow from such a philosophy, though the average secularist probably wouldn’t put it in such stark terms. Stark, or not, isn’t this the inevitable progression of seeing humanity as maybe complex, but nothing special?

The opposing view sees human beings as unique creations. Even Thomas Jefferson, identified by historians as a Deist who doubted the existence of a personal God, understood that if certain rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) do not come from a source beyond the reach of the state, then the state could take those rights away. Those who believe that God made us and also makes the rules about our existence and our behavior will have a completely different understanding of life’s value and our approach to affirming it until natural death. [Emphasis added.]

Democrats should turn back from their rush to embrace a culture of death. And Republicans must not falter in their opposition to it.

Meeting Dan Proft

On this blog, we've endorsed Adam Andrzejewski for Illinois Governor. Adam's campaign continues apace, and he's given us no reason to reconsider our endorsement.

That said, I was at a meeting last night with one of Adam's five primary opponents, Dan Proft. Dan makes a very favorable impression. But do not take my word for it, ask Helga:

Wallace Challenges Kirk

Vote "Yea" on Pence Amendment

From the Eric Wallace campaign

For Immediate Release
Contact: Eric M. Wallace (708) 675-9669

Eric M. Wallace, candidate for US Senate in Illinois, challenges US Rep. Kirk to repudiate his pro-abortion votes and vote yes on the Pence amendment.

Wallace declares, “Today, there is an opportunity to save lives, and taxpayer money in these hard economic times by defunding Planned Parenthood. It’s time for government to stop using taxpayer dollars to kill future taxpayers. Planned Parenthood, and other abortion facilities, are single-handedly responsible for the steady reduction in the number of potential persons who would otherwise be contributing to the economic growth and tax base of our country,” said Wallace.

He challenges US Senate opponent Mark Kirk to vote for the Pence amendment, which states “None of the funds made available under this Act shall be available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Services Act.” This amendment is part of the Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill, which passed successfully through the House Rules Committee late Thursday. The bill is set for a vote today in the house.

“A ‘yes’ vote from Kirk would begin to reconcile his previous voting record in support of partial birth abortions—and lack of support for parental notification for minors who want abortions. It would be an opportunity for Kirk, who has been on the wrong side of this issue, to finally fight for those who cannot fight for themselves and to stop the genocide that has taken the lives of over 14 million African American babies” Wallace said.

Wallace is a 50-year-old magazine publisher and author residing in Matteson, IL. with wife Jennifer. Wallace is co-chair of the Cook County Republican Party, past chairman of the African-American Republican Council and ran for Illinois Senate in 2006.

Just a Reminder...

You can now find me on Facebook!

Sometimes, You Just Gotta Spread The Word

Another good use for the internet: getting back at big businesses who piss you off by making "anti-commercials" about their service.



(H/T: Shoved to Them)

Thoughts of a Regular Guy