The Right Side

Surprise Candidate Charges in Iowa Polling

2007-11-15T13:58:00.000-05:00

In the latest RCP (Real Clear Politics) average of Iowa polls, Mike Huckabee has surged in the polls placing second only behind Mitt Romney. Just look at Huckabee's progress since July when he first registered on Iowa polls. This recent boost could be a result of conservatives in Iowa being fed up with Romney and Giuliani's left leaning politics on social issues. In one poll, Romney leads Huckabee by only 2 points. If Huckabee can score an early victory or even a second place finish in Iowa, New Hampshire or any of the other pre-Super Tuesday states, it could propel him to the level of the front runners. As candidates drop out of the race, Huckabee could just be hitting his stride.

Link to Outside Article

2007-11-13T12:05:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul’s Not Going Quietly

In most presidential elections there is someone who, from the fringes, comes out of nowhere to cause a stir. This year it has to be Ron Paul. He has the loudest, most feverish followers, and he smells blood. The main criticism of Paul has been his inability to transfer his group of hardcore internet followers to real fundraising power. This changed last week when Paul earned a record 4.2 million dollars in 24 hours. No one is picking Paul to actually win the White House, but he could prove to be a major ally to whoever gets him to turn tail from his own campaign and help theirs.

Giuliani-Huckabee, a Dream Republican Ticket?

2007-11-13T11:43:00.001-05:00

By Chris Bradley

So far, the race to the White House has been hard on both parties. For the first several months of the campaign, Republican candidates seemed content to attack each other to better position themselves for the upcoming primaries. In the past few weeks, the attacks have shifted from each other to a Democratic candidate. Now the race to the White House seems to be a race to hate Hillary Clinton. The Democratic candidates are eager to help, with Obama and Edwards both being extremely critical of Clinton in the past weeks.

The Democratic nomination has been a two horse race for months with Clinton leading Obama by nearly 20 points and Edwards being more than 10 back of Obama according to the latest AP-Ipsos, NBC/WSJ, and CNN polls.

The Republican race looked to be much more exciting, but the surge from Fred Thompson’s announcement has died off rather quickly and he is now only one point up on McCain and four points up on Romney. All of these candidates are at least 14 points behind Giuliani.

Which brings us to America’s former mayor. When the campaign season kicked off, the major question was if the Christian right would allow a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Republican to get the nomination. Now it seems that might not matter. The liberal nature of Giuliani is playing really well with left leaning Republicans and independents, and the truth is, even the most right winged will fall in line if they have to choose between Giuliani or Clinton.

A dark horse has emerged over the last two months, from not even registering in polls to having over eight percent, Mike Huckabee is on the cusp of being a major candidate. Most amazing about this is the lack of national attention or money he is spending.

I don’t believe Huckabee could wrangle the nomination away from Giuliani, but this could be the Republican party’s best chance to beat the polarizing Democrats. Giuliani has the image of a non Bush type leader who is still a pro war, tough on defense stalwart. He may be our only hope of bringing back Regan Democrats and independents. Huckabee would be an ideal running mate for Giuliani, Giuliani could court the libs and Huckabee, a strict Baptist Minister, could court the conservatives.

While early polling data at the state level is unreliable, I believe they show the trends of what’s going on at the local levels of the campaigns. Romney claims to be poised to win the nomination because of his leads in early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Michigan. However, he has slid in the polls in all four of these states (He still leads by double digits in NH And Iowa). In South Carolina his lead is down to .3% over Giuliani. In Michigan, a state he identified as being the most important one to him by spending the most amount of time and money in, he was leading the polls for months, until recently when he was polled being 3 and 4 points back of Giuliani in two polls. The former Mayor also has massive (15 points or more)leads in early primary states Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. That puts the total in electoral votes at 19 for Romney and 85 for Giuliani, and that’s with Romney winning the tossup state South Carolina.

Letter From The Editor

2007-11-10T11:17:00.000-05:00

By Chris Bradley

To respond to some of the criticism we at The Right Side have already received even though we haven’t published our first edition yet, The Editor in Chief would like to point out that we have never claimed to be a newspaper. There are several reasons we don’t mislabel ourselves with this moniker even though others may throw the term around:
1. I am the only person on staff who has had any experience writing news (I spent a year on staff at CM-Life and took several journalism classes);
2.We wont be publishing enough (once a month most likely) to stay current with news, therefore, the goal of the publication will be to engage readers in reflection of conservative ideas. This may include opinion pieces, academic journal style articles, and news articles;
3. The online version of our publication will be blog style. This means it will be informal and open to the public. What appears on the website will not be published in the same form when we print, articles will be trimmed to a more appropriate length. Also, it is important to note that comments will be open for the time being because we welcome whatever criticism the readers may bring.

That being said, I would like to thank you for being a part of the groundwork of our publication. Obviously we are still in the experimental stages what the publication will become, we even offered a monthly article to the Chairman of the College Democrats at CMU to promote diversity in ideas, but unfortunately he declined. As for the article by Emmy Pontz, yes this was a research paper she used for a class. I chose to post this article because I felt it was the caliber of a graduate level academic journal. Ms. Pontz used empirical methodology rarely found in writings on campus and used detailed references to back up her claims. I felt this article was an important scholarly work. If you are not fond of this style of writing, there’s a chance you will not like our publication which may end up being more scholarly journal than newspaper. If you have any comments or questions, please email be at Bradley5865@gmail.com.

Islam and Terrorism: The Verses in the Qur’an that Link the Two

2007-11-06T16:09:00.000-05:00

By Emmy Pontz

Five years into the War on Terror it is still common to hear Islam called a “religion of peace” despite the unrelenting acts of brutality done by its extremists in the name of Islam (Spencer 2006). Islam ought to have come to the vanguard of public debate: But it did not. Despite 9/11 and the continued attacks on innocents, Islamic extremists are somehow above any type of criticism (Pawlik). Thomas Jefferson once stated, “Divided we stand, united we fall.” By this statement, Jefferson paved way to the American foundation of the separation of church and state. But today, when a religion’s extremists have proclaimed war on America, that separation of morals and “new age” tolerance becomes a deadly mistake. Some scholars believe that Islam is a religion which only teaches comfort and peace (Lewis 2002). It is these scholars that aid in the blind tolerance in which many Americans derive their “political and religious freedoms”. It is behind Americans burgeoning eyelids that Muslim extremists are able to hide the reality of Muhammad’s sadistic commands. Those who speak against it commit political suicide. However, to simply instigate my position on this issue, I will share that the Qur’an does not condone those who merely tolerate them. “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike of their heads, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4).

My study is not to be aimed in any way toward the belief that Muslims are evil. I am trying to create the foundation that the Islam extremists have highlighted the verses that those uneducated to the Qur’an would never notice. Unlike some scholars that are trying to establish that there are no ties to terrorism in the Qur’an, I will show you that there are many verses in the Qur’an that may provoke or confuse many Muslims. It is here that one can differentiate the Muslim extremists and the generally peaceful Muslims. The people haven’t hijacked the religion; the religion has hijacked the people (Schmidt 2004). In order to concoct a well developed study, I focused on three questions. When combined, these questions will thoroughly establish that the religion of Islam is not a religion of peace, but more so a religion founded on abundant verses of terror. I will show along with scholars, the Qur’an, and the terrorist’s personal accounts that it was and is not Muslims who have hijacked the religion; it is the religion who hijacked followers to commit such acts of terror. Following the all-encompassing research that I have provided, I will unveil my theory and hypothesis. Finally, I will conclude my study material with the methods that I would employ to achieve such a study and my anticipation for what I hope to accomplish in my quest to inform people of the truth.

What Do the Scholars Say?

In my quest to unveil the true ties between Islam and terrorism, I initially focused on what the scholars have divulged. I felt that it was important not to rely solely on my two month long study, but to make those who have made the study of Islam their most prominent subject of study one of my focal points. One of the beliefs presented by one of the authors, has implanted itself into my mind and has become part of what I will strive to establish in my study. Dr. Alvin Schmidt, author of The Great Divide, stated, “It is not the people that hijacked the religion; it is the religion that hijacked the people (Schmidt 2004). To whatever extent I agreed with Dr. Schmidt, I was aware that in order to unwaveringly expose the truth to my readers, I must verify it with further expert’s findings.

Gregg Jackson, author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, basis his arguments on several confirmed facts. He shares with his reader that Islam, as defined in Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, means war, death and persecution. Because of the reality that this definition was termed in this manner, in a modern day Arabic dictionary, one can conclude that even Arabic speaking Muslims must notice the correlation between the verses in their religion and the definition of their religion (Jackson 2007). Another point that Jackson notes is that Muslims are currently involved in the vast majority of wars on the planet but have not been formally condemned by any Islamic clerics and have won many of the elections in Muslim countries.

The next scholar that I focused on was Robert Spencer. Spencer was a Muslim for the good majority of his life, and now focuses his study on uncovering the violent links in the Qur’an’s verses to terrorist’s mindsets. I focused on two of Spencer’s works, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, and, The Truth about Muhammad. In both documents, Spencer reveals that Muhammad teaches his followers that there is nothing better or holier than jihad warfare (Spencer 2005 and 2006). When asked by a follower to name the best deed a Muslim can do besides the act of becoming a Muslim, the Prophet of Islam answered, “To participate in Jihad is Allah’s cause” (Hadith). Muhammad also told his followers to offer three choices to non-Muslims: They may accept Islam, pay the jizya, the poll tax that Muslims create to humiliate non-Muslims, or face war with the Muslims (Jihad). Spencer ends the topic of warfare in the Qur’an and Hadith by stating that these teachings are not historical relics, they are presently taught in mainstream Islam. Not only do they commit such crimes of hatred, but they believe that God approves of them (Spencer 2005).

In The Truth about Muhammad, the second book written by Robert Spencer that I studied, he informs the reader of additional connections between the Qur’an and violence. Although it would be ignorant to state that all Muslims are violent, Spencer poses an excellent question in that regard. He asks his reader why, if the extreme Muslims are the only Muslims who have been committing the acts of terror, are the jihadist Muslims winning elections in the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere (Spencer2006)? He is correct in that peaceful Muslims show no sign of formally condemning or taking action against those who are fighting in their name. He also forebodingly states that such ignorance and lack of education to the truth about the Qur’an is a mistake that the West cannot afford to make any longer (Spencer 2006).

Perhaps the author that influenced and aided my study the most was Amber Pawlik. Pawlik has devoted her time to the subject of Islam and the Qur’an and has written more then ten essays on the topic. The essay that I focused on was Islam in Trial: The Prosecution’s Case against Islam. She shapes her argument by enlightening the reader as to the ignorance of many to the verses in the Qur’an. She begins, “We have watched Muslims behead innocent civilians and were told that it is against Islam, but there are numerous Surah’s that command the beheading of non-Muslims” (Pawlik). An example she supplies to her reader is from the Qur’an 8:12, “I will cast dread into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, then strike off from them every fingertip.” Pawlik suggests that the only way to establish the connection between Islam and Terrorism is to read the Qur’an. Therein lays the eye-opening verses, only hidden by ignorance. (I will make available to my reader more of these verses in the subsequent segment of my essay).

Pawlik also conducted a study of the verses in the Qur’an. In the initial, smaller portion of her study, she wanted at least thirty random samples to make her study significantly sound. To avoid being accused of cherry picking, Pawlik took verse ten from randomly chosen Surah’s and ended up with thirty-four verses. Here are results of her smaller study:

18/34 (52.9%) - over half - of these random verses is vitriol aimed at infidels.
6/34 (17.6%) Deal with Allah
5/34 (14.7%) Deal with believers
4/34 (11.8%) Deal with Day of Judgment or Day of Doom
1/34 (3.4%) ... is a good verse! (Do not steal from the poor / Give to the poor)

CALCULATION
The confidence interval for proportion is p +/- z("/2)√(p*q/n)
Where,
p = Proportion from Sample
q = 1 - p
n = Sample Size
z("/2) represents the z-value under a normal curve on a Z-chart that leaves an area of "/2 to the right

Therefore,
.529 +/- 1.96*√(.529*.471/34)

=.529 +/- .168

Therefore with 95% confidence, we can say the proportion is somewhere between 36.1% and 69.7%.

***The results of her larger study are:
106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as

*Threats towards infidels either in the after life or this life
*Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, blind, deaf, liars, thankless, etc.
*Calls to fight against them.
*Verses that say "except the believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatred since avoiding death is not a positive to believers
*The threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel.

50/201 (24.9%) Deals with believers, defined as
*Mentioning them
*Saying they are righteous
*Saying they will get good things
*Any mentions of one of the prophets was snuck into this category too

3/201 (11.4%) deal with Allah
*Who he is
*That he is almighty
*Any of his creations

10/201 (5%) deal with the Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment
*Either the Day of Doom when destruction is sent on the earth or
*Day of Judgment when all are judged before Allah
*Any message pertaining to how God records what men do was assigned this category

4/201 (2%) are anti-woman
*That it’s OK to beat a woman
*Women and slaves get married off but have no choice in the matter and is very self-serving to Muhammad or men in general.

4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way

2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette, for instance *How to divorce your wife

1/201 (0.5%)disapproves of a man who murdered someone, but only because it was for the wrong reason to kill someone.

1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is OK for people to have their religion while Muslims have theirs

Lt. General Thomas McInerney also stands confident in his military based study on Islam (McInerney 2004). In Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror, McInerney assures his readers that if Islam were only in a few countries, we wouldn’t have to get involved…But it has its grasp across the world along with its ambitions to destroy and create war against the West. He suggests that some Muslims are so easy to condemn the West because it is a symbol of the empire they once had, along with an expanse of non-Muslim ideologies (McInerney 2004). He further proposes that the Islam extremists’ dreams are the westerners’ nightmares. How will they achieve this victory? McInerney answers this by affirming that they have established a “web of terror” (2004). This “web of terror” does not seek accommodation with its enemies; it is bent solely on their destruction (2004). Where does this “web of terror” instigate? McInerney answers this question as well. He indemnifies to the reader that the world of youthful Islam serves as a recruitment center for terrorist organizations (2004). These schools are worldwide.

What can the Qur’an tell us?

This was and is the key factor to establishing a formidable basis to my argument. To fully understand the next portion of my research, one must be educated on the Qur’an and its supplementary books. The Qur’an, the Muslim version of the Bible, contains 114 chapters, also known as Surahs. There are three additional books that are used/followed in the Islamic faith. The second, following the Qur’an, the Hadith, talks of the traditions of Muhammad. The third, the Sira, is the biography of Muhammad. The fourth and final document is called the Sharia, the book of holy laws. The laws in the Sharia supersede any other laws, including those of the political dimension.

Many verses in the Qur’an and the Hadith provoke the acts of terror, such as brutal beheadings, done in the name of Islam. One such verse states, “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Anyone who insults or even opposes Muhammad or his people, deserves a humiliating death- by beheading if possible” (Qur’an 47:4). Another verse states, “Those who reject Islam are the vilest of creatures and deserve no mercy” (Quran 98:6).

The Qur’an also sets a vendetta against Christians and Jews. Qur’an 5:51 states, “Oye who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them.” These verses are not among those that have been abrogated. Abrogation is the ability to make verses invalid and is used often in the religion of Islam (Schmidt 2004). Out of the 114 Surahs in the Qur’an, only forty-three don’t have any abrogated verses (Schmidt 2004). Another verse in opposition to Christians and Jews is found in Qur’an 9:30, “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah Himself fighteth against them. How perverse are they!” Many do not realize what verses the Qur’an entails, but those who educate themselves are aware of their vindictive nature (Schmidt 2004). However, a number of countries, when polled, accounted for a fear of Islamic extremism being a threat to their countries (Pew Research Center 2005).

*** conducted among more than 17,000 people
*Pew Global Attitudes Project, a project of the PewResearchCenter

This data shows that half of the countries polled are apprehensive about a terrorist attack on their county and that Christians in Lebanon are far more apprehensive than Muslims about being attacked by Muslim extremists. Subsequent to this poll, the Pew Research Center also conducted a poll asking if violence against civilian targets was justified. All but one country had more people say that it was justifiable than those that said it was not justifiable.

In truth, there are actually a great number of verses in the Qur’an that condone and even command war. Qur’an 8:60 states, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” There is actually a Surah entitled the “Spoils of War Surah,” which is found in the eighth Surah.

“Allah has sent you from your homes to fight for the Cause. Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe the infidels out to the last. I shall fill the hearts of the infidels with terror! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to Allah and His Apostle. Whoever opposes Us should know that Allah is severe in retribution. The infidels will taste the torment of Hell. So when you meet them in battle do not retreat, for all who turn away from fighting will bring the wrath of Allah on themselves and their abode will be Hell. It was not you who killed them, but Allah who did so. You did not throw what you threw. Allah did to bring out the best in the faithful.”

This is the actual Surah that Nick Berg’s beheaders used to justify their acts. It is a means of commanding and condoning violence. Allah himself says that he will fill infidels’ hearts with terror and incapacitate them. Then, he continues by warning his followers that if they turn away from fighting, they will bring the wrath of Allah upon them and will be in Hell. Next, Allah condones theses acts by telling his followers that it wasn’t really them that is killing people, but Allah bringing out the best in the faithful. Then Allah continues…

“If you meet them in a battle, inflict such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned. Surely the infidels cannot get away. Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster, that you may terrorize the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8 cont.).

Also in the eighth Surah, Allah commands clerics to preach the importance of war.

“O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will kill a thousand infidels, for they area people void of understanding.”

It only took nineteen Islam extremists to kill over three thousand Americans. Throughout the verses that I have cited in my study, the word “infidel” is mentioned countlessly. What does the word infidel mean? The Qur’an defines “Infidels” in the fifth Surah: “They are surely infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God.”

Are there any verses that might provoke or condone the terrorists’ actions?

This was the third question that I wished to answer. There are certainly verses in the Qur’an that could provoke acts of terror as the previous portion of my study provides. But, do the terrorists employ these verses and Allah to condone their acts? To further understand this concept, I turned to the speeches and letters of the terrorists. First, I focused on Al Zarqawi’s letter to the Muslims.

“The Americans, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them, to sow panic among those who are behind them.”
He presents his letter in the form of a prayer in order to deceit the Muslim people. This particular portion of Zarqawi’s letter is very similar to a verse found in Surah 98:6: “Those who reject Islam are the vilest of creatures and deserve no mercy.” He then continues… “Let blood be spilled and we will soothe and speed those who are good to their paradise. As for those who, unlike them, are evil, we will be delivered from them, since by God, God’s religion is more precious than anything and has priority over lives, wealth, and children.”

This section of Zarqawi’s letter is analogous to the verse found in Surah 9:14, “Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.”
***All of Al Zarqawi’s letters came from, The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing the American Response.
Osama bin Laden addressed his speech to the American people.

“We have been fighting you because we are free men who do not remain silent in the face of injustice. We want to restore our Islamic nation’s freedom. Clearly, those who hate freedom- unlike the 19 (the terrorists who carried out 9/11), may Allah have mercy on them- have no self esteem.”

Similarly to Al Zarqawi, Bin Laden involves Islam to gain approval from Muslims.
My study, as I mentioned in the beginning, is not to be aimed in any way toward the belief that Muslims are evil. I am trying to create the foundation that the Islam extremists have highlighted the verses that those uneducated to the Qur’an would never notice. Unlike some scholars that are trying to establish that there are no ties to terrorism in the Qur’an, I will show you that there are many verses in the Qur’an that may provoke or confuse many Muslims. It is here that one can differentiate the Muslim extremists and the generally peaceful Muslims. The people haven’t hijacked the religion; the religion has hijacked the people.

Theory and Hypotheses

In my study, I have shown that there are indeed many verses that may condone or encourage terrorism. This does not mean however, that terrorists have any right to use these verses to condone such acts. Because the Qur’an does contain violent verses, it would be difficult for one to argue that there is nothing in the Qur’an that would provoke terrorism and violence. Only certain sects of Islam teach and condone violence, just like certain sects of Christianity condone extremism. Unlike some scholars that are trying to establish that there are no ties to terrorism in the Qur’an, I have shown you that there are many verses in the Qur’an that may provoke or confuse many Muslims. It is here that a person educated in the Qur’an can set apart the Muslim extremists, who do utilize the countless violent verses, and the generally peaceful Muslims, who obviously do not carry out what these verses articulate. Above all, as Dr. Schmidt stated in The Great Divide, “The people haven’t hijacked the religion; the religion has hijacked the people” (Schmidt 2004).

Hypothesis 1- The more educated one is on the Qur’an and its Surah’s, the more likely one will be to agree that there are indeed verses that provoke and condone acts of violence.

Hypothesis 2- Similarly, the less educate one is on the Qur’an, the less one would be to agree that there are verses that provoke and condone acts of violence.

Hypothesis 3- If tested in a simple, non-biased, random poll, many people would respond that Islam does not in any way condone acts of violence.

Future Aspects

Upon devoting two months of my life to this project, I have become very passionate about its premises. In order to persist forward, I will conduct numerous questionnaires. I will also speak to more experts that have dedicated their life to the study of Islam and the Qur’an. I will furthermore personally examine the Qur’an and perhaps do a comparison of its verses and conduct my own studies of the verses like that of Amber Pawlik. Above all, I wish to uncover the truth and present it with even more certainty so others will also wish to become educated on the Qur’an and its many violent verses.

References
Davis, John. 2005. The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing the American Response.
Hauppauge, NY. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 229-240.

Jackson, Gregg. 2007. Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies. Ramsey, NJ. Arbor
Books, Inc. 199-202.

Lewis, Bernard. 2002. “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” The Atlantic Monthly. JSTOR
3 March 2007.

McInerney, Lt. General Thomas and Maj. General Paul Vallely. 2004. Endgame.
Washington DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc. 35-41.

Pawlik Amber. 2006. “Islam on Trial: The Prosecution’s Case against Islam.”
www.amberpawlik.com. 2006. 1-6.

Schmidt, Dr. Alvin. 2004. The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam and the Triumph of the
West. Boston, Massachusetts. Regina Orthodox Press, Inc. 217-221.

Special Dispatch Series- NO. 811. 2004. “The Full Version of Osama bin Laden’s
Speech.” Middle East Media Research Institiute. 2004. 1-4.

Spencer, Robert. 2005. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Washington DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc. 3-231.

Spencer, Robert. 2006. The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most
Intolerant Religion. Washington DC. Regnery Publishing, Inc. 1-27.

Arguments for Pro-Choice Voting

2007-11-06T15:57:00.000-05:00

By Derek Gainsworth

However you feel on this controversial issue one must admit that it is a major issue in America today. Both sides have been fighting since 1973 with the passing of Roe V Wade either to uphold the pro-choice legislation or to dismantle it. The Pro-Life side of the issue in America is strong with the March For Life approaching in January in Washington D.C.

A recent Fox News Poll states that nearly half of Americans need to know where a candidate stands on the issue. Fifty-six percent of pro-lifers say that they have to know. With the elections of 2008 heating up this issue stands to come up and get peoples attention and votes.

The Pro-Life side usually is affiliated with the right side of politics. Conservatives in the Republican Party make up some of the loudest anti-abortion activists in the country. They believe that life begins at conception and abortion is a horrible procedure.

While some believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest a great number of Pro-Lifers believe that abortion needs to be illegal in all cases as it is murder.
Some statistics that Pro-Lifers site are as follows:

Once the sperm joins the ovum to form one cell this one cell contains the complete genetic makeup for every detail of a new human life including the child’s sex, hair, and eye color, height, skin tone, etc.
From the moment of conception nothing new is added to the baby or “fetus” but oxygen, nutrition, and time.
The heart starts beating at 21 days.
At six weeks brain waves are detected and control 40 sets of muscles as well as all organs.
In the 3rd month the baby’s fingerprints have formed and will never change and all organs are formed and functioning. Sexual organs are present.

All of these statistics are in the first trimester when abortions are most commonly performed. At the moment of conception a new life is formed with the cell dividing rapidly. At conception the genetic makeup of the cell is the exact same as the genetic makeup of a delivered baby.

Pro-lifers believe that fighting abortion not only is saving human life but saving long-term physical and mental problems of the woman having an abortion.
Some statistics of what happens to women who have abortions are as follows:

Pregnant women who abort have a 6 times higher rate of suicide than those who carry their babies to term.
Teenagers who abort are 10 times more likely to attempt suicide than teens who have not had an abortion.
Studies have shown that post-abortive American women are 65% more likely to be a risk of long-term clinical depression.
Women who abort are 144% more likely to physically abuse their current and/or future children.
Women who’ve undergone previous abortions have a 60% higher risk of miscarriage in a future pregnancy.

The health of the woman is at risk if she has an abortion. Her physical and mental health are damaged. This leads many abortive mothers to abuse their children after an abortion.

The pro-life side of the abortion issue believe that abortion is murdering a human life and harming the physical and mental health of the abortive mother. With statistics such as the genetic makeup of the “fetus” is a startling fact that the “fetus” is only different from a born baby in size and appearance.

The Pro-Choice side states that abortions are quick and easy without major side effects to the mother. The side-effects to the mother include increase chances of future miscarriages, increase chances of suicide, increase chances of abusing current or future children , increase chances of long-term clinical depression, and the least important side-effect of a dead baby.

The outcome of Pro-Life is a baby that can either be taken care of and loved by the parents or given up for adoption to couples who can’t physically have children or would rather adopt unwanted children. The risks outweigh the non-existent benefits in the support of abortion. Pro-life is the only humane and healthy choice for voters in the 2008 election.

Politicizing Nature Part 1

2007-10-30T22:44:00.000-04:00

By Chris Bradley

In the wake of the fervor over Hurricane Katrina, Democrats were quick to politicize one of the most horrific natural disaster years in American history. The reason for this incredible lapse in judgment was twofold: first, to demonize President Bush on his “poor leadership in times of disaster;” and the more foolhardy reasoning, global warming.

People like Al Gore can make disastrous claims about the future as long as they are made for years after they are dead. Claim that the world will become unlivable in 100 years and you might just get a Nobel Peace Prize. These claims are made with no more science than those who cried that the year 2000 would bring about the Apocalypse. Yet 2000 came and went sans the rapture.

This brings us to predictions made several months ago that hurricanes would be out of control this year and that there would be 17 named storms, 5 of which would become major hurricanes. In mid July a report came out that the numbers had been revised to include only 14 storms of which only 3 would become major hurricanes. The numbers have been revised as the season has gone on without a major hurricane hitting South-Eastern America.

In fact, the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) recently reported that 2006 was less active than the average year, and 2007 was the least active year since 1977 when it came to Northern Hemisphere tropical storms. This seems to directly contradict the doom saying of environmental liberals that the world is circling the drain, but do they let the truth stop them? The answer is a resounding NO. This last week CNN debuted the nut job turned liberal activist George Soro’s newly funded “Planet in Peril” about the sure demise of the world due to global warming. The truth is, the public doesn’t care about the science if you flash pictures of dieing polar bears.

Image courtesy of COAPS

The hurricane season coming in going without major loss of life is devastating to Democrats who are actively invested in disaster and defeat of the American spirit. This is why they blew the story of the wildfires in California so out of proportion. There will be plenty more on this in part 2 of the story.

P.S. I am in no way trying to trivialize Hurricane Katrina; that is what the Democrats have done for the past two years. Katrina was a horrifying disaster which caused the deaths of over 1800 people and over 81 billion dollars in damage. It was the sixth strongest hurricane ever to hit America, and by far the most expensive. But remember, it was, by definition, a natural disaster. A disaster which could have taken place under any presidency. Don’t let power hungry Democrats defile the memories of those lost or those who fought so bravely to save who they could.

Response to Durbin's Amnesty Bill

2007-10-30T21:47:00.000-04:00

By Nathan Inks

On October 18th Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the deportation of an illegal immigrant and change his/her status to that of a citizen, as long as the alien fulfills 6 requirements. (1) The alien must first have entered the U.S. before his or her 16th birthday and (2) must be under 30 years of age. (3) The immigrant cannot be inadmissible or deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. (4) He or she must have been admitted to an institution of higher education or has graduated from high school or received a GED. (5) The candidate must not have ever been deported. (6) Lastly, the immigrant must have “demonstrated good moral character.”

After the immigrant fulfills the above requirements, he or she will be placed on a conditional permanent resident status for 6 years. While under this conditional status, the immigrant must fulfill 5 more requirements: (1) continue to demonstrate “good moral character”; (2) continue to fulfill the above requirements; (3) continue residence in the U.S.; (4) receive a degree from an institution of higher learning or serve in the military for 2 years; and (5) list the high school(s) he or she attended. However, if the conditional status would cause “hardship” on the alien or his or her relatives living in the U.S., the Secretary may waive the college/armed forces part of the conditional status.

In addition to allowing for the changing of the alien’s status, this bill would force the Attorney General to not deport any illegal immigrant who is at least 12 years old and enrolled in a school, as long as he or she meets the first set of requirements.
Although the essentials of this bill have been introduced several times attached to other bills, the DREAM Act itself has never been introduced as a stand-alone bill. Fortunately, up to this point, none of the bills that this has been attached to have passed, but this does not reduce the amount of fear that this type of legislation instills in me.

Frankly, this bill scares me—it has gone past the traditional “Pay a fine and back taxes and you can stay” amnesty bills and says, “Get a GED and go to college and you’re good. Oh, and behave while you’re here too.” The bill has so many loopholes that it will be incredibly easy for illegal immigrants to become citizens without even having to follow the “intent” of the bill.
The first problem that I have with this bill is the ambiguity of the phrase “good moral character” which many have defined as not having a criminal record, but it does not say that (and I for one would like to know how somebody who illegally came into the country could possibly classify themselves as having “good moral character)”. The problem will come when some illegal alien challenges his drug charge because he personally thinks that drugs are not immoral. At first the judge tells him that he must still be high from the crack and the alien is taken off the list of people not to get deported, but the immigrant takes his case to the ACLU who gets one of their million-dollar lawyers to argue his case. The team winds up winning and sets a precedent that drug charges do not count against an immigrant as a violation of the “good moral character” clause. And this is the one of the least damaging hypothetical disasters that the country could endure because of this bill.

The second problem with this bill is that all the immigrant has to do to pass the first “phase” is to enroll in college and get a GED. So while Durbin wants the immigrant children to get an education, all they really have to do is study for and pass a test—nice plan Senator. Then again, at least this loophole would provide the taxpayers a break. I can envision it now: The ACLU sues a school because they refuse to teach a calculus class in Spanish, thus they are discriminating. They win their court case and schools are required to offer most classes in English and Spanish, and who knows what other languages may be added. How many high school calculus teachers did you know that could speak Spanish—not that many, right? So that means more teachers, and more teachers means more taxes.

Yet another problem that I have with this bill is that the alien can plead that he was unable to complete the requirement that he must receive at least a bachelor’s degree or serve 2 years in the armed forces because doing so would cause “hardship” on him or his family. So we have an immigrant who cannot get into college because he cannot afford it, so he says that he will enroll in the military. Trouble is, his mother does not want him to risk his life for the country that he is stealing tax payer money from, so he pleads his case saying that since he cannot afford college, his only option is the military, and this would cause “hardship” on his mother. Well who defines hardship? He wins his case, and is now a citizen of the U.S., finally paying taxes at least.
Perhaps the scariest situation would be avoided if the immigrants did not decide to plead “hardship” and began enlisting in our military. What is Senator Durbin thinking? He wants us to let a person with limited to no records who has only lived in the country for 5 years and received a GED or high school diploma into the military? Where is the national security in this? How can we do background checks on someone we know nothing about? In an age where the Chinese are hacking our Department of Defense network, is it really wise to allow illegal immigrants into our military? This would be the perfect opportunity for spies to infiltrate our military, and gain citizenship while doing it, assuming they do not get caught, unless Senator Durbin wants to add in a loophole to protect spies as well.

If this bill or any like it ever passes, it would be not only a disaster for the tax payers and the school systems, but it would also be a grave mistake in terms of our national security. And what I will never understand is why people defend these immigrants who are breaking the law. They are illegal immigrants. The word illegal seems to have lost its meaning to not only the general public, but also many of our Senators. If we want to stop this invasion and ultimate destruction of our country, we must take action and start deporting these aliens. Immigration is a great part of America, but we cannot allow for illegal immigration to run rampant and wild.

First Publication

2007-10-26T20:21:00.000-04:00

In concert with Central Michigan University's new conservative publication "The Right Side," this site will soon be home to all articles from the print publication along with tons of online content which will be updated regularly.