Monday, September 29

Bailout Fails

When was the last time, that the leaders of BOTH parties, the president and both presidential candidates voted in favor and supported and Congress votes NO.

It was the people speaking.

Oppose the $700 billion bailout

Freedomworks is the best place for information on opposition.

Friday, September 19

Factcheck Upholds NRTL and Calls Obama a Lier

And factcheck isn't what one would consider to be conservative. For that matter, I consider them one of the reemerging non-partisan truth seekers.

Monday, September 15

How Wisconsin Law adds $.30/gal to Your Bill

Saturday, September 13

Obama and the Economy


Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.

In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.

Gerson on Trig

When the left advocates aborting babies with Downs, they are again practicing eugenics.

This difference clarifies the most basic question of medical ethics: How do we improve humanity? By eliminating the "imperfect" from among us? Or by showing our humanity, especially toward the "imperfect"?

Thursday, September 11

NRO gets the McCain ad

More repeats of Obama's Talking Points

Howard Kurtz repeats the falsehoods:

"This 'sex ed' ad the McCain campaign just launched is waaaay over the line. After a parade of out-of-context quotes, it shows Obama smirking naughtily as the voiceover talks about him wanting to provide 'comprehensive' sex education to kindergarteners. The voiceover by itself is hard-hitting, but together with the visuals, the ad basically paints Obama as a pedophile. (In reality, the legislation provides for educating younger children about the difference between good touches and bad touches to help protect them against pedophiles.)

Isn't it a real issue to talk about if schools should be teaching very young children about "good touch bad touch." Oh yeah, and some birds and the bees and that some touch is fun. Parents have a right to be mad about this sort of things being taught to their kids.

Tuesday, September 9

Response From MSM and McCain Ad

I got two responses back already on the false Kansas City piece. One from their editor just said "OK."

Margaret replied with the following:
"Mr. Pillman,
Thanks for your note. If you are aware of any public schools in Illinois teaching kindergartners comprehensive sex ed as a result of this legislation, I will stand corrected."

And I replied:

First of all, thank you for not only responding to my question but by responding promptly.

But second you are shifting the point of the argument: McCain said the legislation supported comprehensive sex ed. You said the legislation did not. I still want to see how Illinois Senate bill 99 (the one in the McCain ad) never supported comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. Neither your article nor my comments about it ever discussed if Illinois schools actually taught sex ed to kindergarteners because of Senate Bill 99.

Third, although it is shifting the point of my question, please take a look at this information for the PTA of Fair View South School in Skokie IL. Link:

Fairview has developed a comprehensive health education curriculum for all students beginning in kindergarten and continuing through eighth grade. Some mandated areas of instruction that receive special attention are:
Fairview offers instructional programs in family life and sex education as a means for the District's students to acquire knowledge about human sexuality and to help them make responsible decisions about their lives.”

I believe this proves the point you are wanting. So not only did Obama support comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners, but by this Illinois PTA handbook we know it is happening.

I think this information would make for a great follow up piece on exactly what Obama supported and where things stand today. If you want me to write one, I would be happy to.

Awaiting your reply,
Lucas Pillman

You know, this all made me think: We all can make mistakes once in awhile. This might have been an honest mistake of not really digging into the facts. When that happens though, the person responsible should try and make it right by coming clean on what the facts are. Voters deserve it.

Another MSM McCain Slam. McCain right. MSM wrong.

This Kansas City highlight of McCain's new ad is horrible. It accuses McCain of lying when he is really telling the truth. They will have to learn sometime that simply repeating Obama press releases is dangerous.

Here is the case:

Kansas City:

What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach " 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach
"age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to
kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children
about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.

The Illinois Law:

Here. Read for Yourself.
90% of this law is just about adding K-6 to existing Illinois law about comprehensive (yes, it says comprehensive) sex education for all of Illinois students. Comprehensive sex education is mentioned six times in the legislation and never is Kindergarten or any other grade singled out as being exempted from the comprehensive part. Yes it mentions "age-appropriate" but never in contrast to comprehensive. For example see this part of the law:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

Obama Specifically:

When asked about this vote by David Brody in June of 2008 the Obama campaign pointed to "Oregon Department of Education guidelines which they said would give people a good idea of where Obama is at on the issue." Again, those guidelines say that K-12 sex education " comprehensive." Yes, it mentions "age appropriate" but still McCain is right and the MSM and Kansas City Star are wrong.

You can write to Margaret Talvel here and politely tell her of her error. You can also email Kansas City at

Here is the letter I wrote to both of them:

Margaret Talev:

Your article about McCain's Sex-ed ad is blatantly wrong. In it you said that

"But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate"
sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators."

In reading the actual legislation I found McCain to be precisely right. If you read the legislation you will find that for the most part it simply added K-6 to the current law that included comprehensive sex education.
Here is the legislation:

It specifically says:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex

14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

Obama has also said he supports Oregon's Sex-ed.See here: It too mentions K-12 comprehensive sex-ed. See here:

I wait to hear your correction. And please provide me with links to original source documents.

In pursuit of truth,

Lucas Pillman

Sigh. I dug deeper on this one on a simple hunch. How many more slip through without anyone noticing?

Sunday, September 7

Biden: Constitutional rights not to be protected, they are only personal belief

After feeling the heat over answering when life begins as "above his pay grade," Obama/Biden and Co. take a new tack on the constitutionally protected right to life. Obama further muddles:

...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of
humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It's a
pretty tough question.

Nice. I'm not electing a pastor. I don't need you as president to tell me when it gets a soul as much as when the Constitution protects life. When? Are the constitutional rights of a nine-month-old a "tough question?"

Biden also responds:

prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment
of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the
Press.""For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally
and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a
pluralistic society."

So let me translate. Life, a constitutionally protected right begins at conception according to Biden but in a pluralistc society it isn't the government's responsibility to impose that judgemetn on everyone else...or in other words make laws.

Or let's pick another constituitonal right: trial by jury perhaps or unreasonable search and seizure? Should I be able to say that as a matter of faith, I accept that the right to a trial by jury begins at the moment of conception but for me to impose that judgement on everyone inappropriate???

And why only for nine months is it imporper? What about teenagers and the freedom of speech? If I thought that radicals in the 1960s HAVE a right to free speech but many others "maybe even more devout than I am" in a pluralistic society" did not, does that mean they could be put in prison for a constitutional voicing of their opinion?

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama there is this small document called the Declaration of Independence. It says: "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with...Life....That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." One if not THE primary reason government exists is to protect the right of life. When someone attempts to shoot me, you guys as the government must protect that right regardless of what others might think or if we live in a pluralistic society.

These guys need to go back to grade school government class.

Friday, September 5

Is Coburn's Pork Deliverying Poor Babies

Palin is a Homeschooler

Thursday, September 4

Palin: Life [Trig] from Conception. Obama: "Life [even of babies outside the womb] is above my paygrade."

Let the debate begin.

I say, let Trig meet abandoned living aborted babies and America will respond with compassion for both and disbelief at Obama.

Palin and Women

Exactly! And even written by a liberal...

But according to the official feminist sisterhood (which was taken over by the totalitarian Marxist tendency long ago) you can represent the views of Women only if you accept the tenets of their ideology. Ergo, Mrs Palin is not a Woman Candidate.

The rest is also well worth reading. To understand the reaction of Americans to Palin is to understand the difference between Madison and Menomonie, Middle America and the coastal elite.

She is a renegade, the gender equivalent of an Uncle
Tom. In the US, her position is particularly incendiary because it is
part of the culture war between metropolitan liberals and provincial
America: that vast fly-over country where people (or "folks", as they
call themselves) still live by the standards the Palin family embodies.
Life is about hard work and hard play.

They hunt
with guns from childhood. They talk about sin (and redemption) in ways
that embarrass the urban elite, and they regard patriotism as a
fundamental part of their moral code. (It is the liberals' ambivalence
about patriotism that they detest most.)

Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels
of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was
dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves
egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who
claim to represent "ordinary people".

the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when
Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US:
most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic
decencies, the "small-town values", of family, marital fidelity, and
personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them - even if they
do not manage to uphold them.

Middle America - of
which Alaska is spiritually, if not geographically, a part - builds its
life around those ideals and regards commonplace moral lapses as part
of the eternal struggle to be good.

The life of
small-town USA is based on the principles of those Protestant colonial
settlers who founded the nation: hard work, self-improvement, personal
faith and family devotion. Mrs Palin speaks to and for them in a way
that patronising "liberal" elitists find infuriating.

NYT falls for Palin's critique

She knew and predicted the outcome before it even happened: the NYT is no fan of Palin.