Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Nintendo Hates Mother Earth

When I’m not hitting the textbooks or battling the forces of liberalism, I like to play video games, and my favorite of the Big 3 players in the industry happens to be Nintendo. So imagine my amusement to see this story:
Environmental organization Greenpeace has released its latest Guide to Greener Electronics, which ranks electronics manufacturers by their effect on the environment. Family-friendly Nintendo has appeared on the list for the first time and comes in dead last as the only company to score a zero out of ten.
Greenpeace says it has two demands of electronics companies: 1. clean up your products by eliminating hazardous substances, and 2. takeback and recycle your products responsibly once they become obsolete. The Guide does not consider issues like labor standards or energy use.
Each company is given a score in nine categories like Chemicals Management and Amounts Recycled. Scores can be Good (three points), Partially Good (two points), Partially Bad (one point), or Bad (zero points). Nintendo scored Bad in all nine categories.
Some of the reasons Greenpeace gives for Nintendo's low scores are: the company's lack of a policy on its use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a plastic Greenpeace claims poses both environmental and health hazards; the company has no "takeback" policy for consumers to recycle their old Nintendo products.
Nintendo was beaten by other companies on the list like Sony, which scored an eight out of ten, and Microsoft, which fared only slightly better with a 2.7. Sony does have a takeback plan to recycle used Sony products.
Nintendo’s managed to irk the eco-lefties! Y’know, Christmas is just around the corner, and this is yet another reason to
buy a Wii for the right-wing gamer in your life!

Monday, November 26, 2007

American Life League Exposes Sex Book for Kids

WASHINGTON, D.C. · November 19, 2007 / PRNewswire / – "Parents need to know what Planned Parenthood has in store for their children and this report is an excellent starting point," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "The book 'It's Perfectly Normal' is obscene and offensive to Christians."

American Life League's second video report exposes the contents of the book "It's Perfectly Normal." Recently, a Washington State Prison rejected a fundraising letter that included censored images from the book for being "sexually explicit" and "obscene."

American Life League released the report as a part of its continuing effort to educate the public on Planned Parenthood's activities.

"This video report is just the beginning," said Sedlak. "We will continue to use this new media to expose the nation's largest abortion chain and we call on Christians across the nation to join us in putting a stop to tax payer funds for Planned Parenthood."

For the truth about Planned Parenthood, check out these related links:

Protect Your Children - exposing Planned Parenthood's war on childhood innocence:

Sign our petition to end tax funding for Planned Parenthood:

Get the Wednesday STOPP Report:

Help us continue with these releases:

See the ad information that a Washington State Prison rejected:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Open Letter to the National Right to Life Committee RE: Fred Thompson

Please forward & distribute the following message to every pro-life minded voter you can. The right to life and the presidency are too important for us to stand idle while our leaders make such a colossal mistake.
To the Leadership of the National Right to Life Committee,
As a
longtime pro-life activist, I read with great concern reports that the National Right to Life Committee intends to endorse Sen. Fred Thompson for the Republican presidential nomination (PDF link). With all due respect, this decision is utterly maddening.
As a lobbyist, Thompson
lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and his campaign denied it until faced with the proof. He was a major proponent of so-called campaign finance reform, which has been a major impediment to the pro-life movement. He has suggested that he would not vote to ban abortion at the state level (indeed, on the campaign trail he says state authorities “can do whatever they want” about abortionists, distancing himself from the debate—and in both of these stories, he raises the specter of pregnant women thrown in jail, a common pro-abortion scare tactic). Most recently, he told Tim Russert that he opposes the Federal Human Life Amendment, because “people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about.”
when Thompson says he will use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life,” he doesn’t have any sort of meaningful legal protection for the unborn in mind. One has to wonder, then, why the NRLC would throw its support behind a man whose rhetoric doesn’t match his promises.
Is it because he opposes Roe v. Wade, and promises to appoint judicial originalists to the Supreme Court? So do
Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain. Is it because of doubts about Romney’s sincerity? It can’t be—Thompson was once pro-choice as well, and it isn’t clear that his current position is significantly different. Or is it because simply, as their endorsement says, they think Thompson "can win"? If such a (premature) calculation is their reason, then it's truly depressing to see the NRLC put politics over principle.
There is a reasonable pro-life case to be made for Thompson, should he be our sole alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton. But we are in the primary, not the general election, and the pro-life goal should be the candidate who will be the best advocate for unborn rights. As
NRLC co-founder Dr. John Willke has recognized, that someone is Mitt Romney, who, in addition to pro-life stances on Roe, judges, taxpayer funding, and partial-birth abortion, also expresses support for nationwide legal protection for the unborn—including the Human Life Amendment.
The NRLC’s own “Open Petition to the Republican Party” (
PDF file), which demands a pro-life presidential candidate, cites the GOP platform’s declaration that “Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Based on his own words, Fred Thompson is not an advocate of legislative protection for the right to life, and therefore fails your own standard. Why are you settling for the lesser of America’s pro-life options, and why are you doing so at this stage in the race?
In endorsing Thompson, you are setting a precedent that actually threatens the future success of the pro-life movement. If you decide Thompson’s weak stand on abortion is now enough to make someone our movement’s standard-bearer—especially when there is still a stronger viable alternative—you are, in effect, saying that pro-life doesn’t mean as much as it once did. You are defining the term down. Out with “certain unalienable rights” and in with the right to decide in favor of abortion as “what freedom is all about.”
For the sake of the one million
unborn babies per year who will be murdered by abortion, I beg you to reconsider this endorsement. If you do not, however, you can be sure that many pro-lifers like me will remember this incident, and find other organizations and paths with which to defend life—if need be, even from actions of the NRLC.
Calvin Freiburger

A Disturbance in the Force

Is he running for School Board or Jedi Council?

(hat tip: theamericanmind.com)

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Thompson Opposes the Human Life Amendment

Transcript here and video here. Since federalism seems to be this guy’s excuse for everything (except on a state or local government’s right to set tax policy, apparently) I wonder if he has a problem with the Thirteenth Amendment too on states’ rights grounds?
If you support the Human Life Amendment, then there’s
only one major candidate who agrees with you.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Edwards Slams Hillary

This is an excellent ad, particularly because all of Clinton's contradictory statements come from THE SAME EVENT.

It's not often that I'm going to applaud John Edwards, so enjoy it while it lasts.

The views expressed on this weblog are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other websites, blogs, campaigns, publications, or organizations where I have been employed and/or my work has been featured, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of any individuals employed by or otherwise affiliated with such groups.