WTF!??!?!?! Mexican Government paying for Pro-Amnesty Advertisements in the US

The Spartan Spectator posted this video, and I was SHOCKED when I saw it.

If this doesn't outrage you, I don't know what kind of American you are.



America is the Mexican Government's Welfare Solution! Why WHOULDN'T they want Amnesty? A few million dollars on an advertisement campaign is a cheap solution compared to if they actually had a program in their country to take care of their poverty problem! Mexicans would not be running over here risking their life just to work if they weren't seriously desperate for money and a better life! Who would want to leave their home and risk their life crossing a desert?

The solution is with the Mexican Government taking care of their poverty problem, not Amnesty in the US. It is a band-aid for the real problem.

Open your eyes people.

MLK DAY

Monday, January 21, 2008

BAMN "Rally" in Ann Arbor

Last year, UM YAF courageously stood up against BAMN and their blatant disregard for the majority of Michigan voters desire to end racial preferences, quotas and reverse discrimination by protesting their senseless rally. 90% of the BAMNers were school children, promised candy and pizza paid for by tax dollars to wave their arms around for a cause they do not understand. I held a sign with the famous MLK quote "They will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", and I asked a little girl "Do you understand what this means? Do you even know why you are here?" and a BAMN member yelled to the girl "Don't listen to that white lady!!!", and they would not let her hear anything I said. The girl looked at me like I was vermon. Just for my skin color being different than hers, it wasn't the "right" color for them.

Now this is what they are fighting for?



BAMN held another "rally" this year, and I went to investigate. There were no drums or megaphones. I kept checking my watch to see if I had the wrong time, but no, it was noon. There was no one on campus, except some lone students walking back from the library. One thing is certain: BAMN has lost all momentum, they are done, Michigan Voters have scored a victory. BAMN couldn't even bribe the school children with pizza to march.

Want to stop gun violence? Make a GUN FREE ZONE!!.....

The best form of criticism is mockery.... brilliant.

The Abortionist Murdering Babies, Continued

Some good comments came back from this topic, so I am addressing them in another post. Here is some exerpts:

Now, suppose the sperm fertilizes the egg. It still takes three weeks before the brain, heart, and spinal cord of the embryo develops (The details of fetal development can be found at http://health.allrefer.com/health/fetal-development-info.html) During the first three weeks, would terminating the pregnancy be an act of killing or a termination of the process that starts life (similar to the example I expressed in the previous paragraph)? After all, we’re still at the very beginning stages of development, so early in the development process that even the embryo’s vital organs have not formed. Would it be unreasonable to allow these three weeks as a grace period to allow for an abortion for those who do not wish to be parents?

No. Life has started for a separate human being with completely different genetic material at the joining of the two haploids to form a zygote single cell, it is a scientific fact. No debate here. There are thousands of species of bacteria and archaea that live their entire lives living as one cell, but do we not consider them “living” too? They are very small and we can not see them, are they considered to be less “living” than a human? Now I am not advocating for bacteria living rights or anything, but this clarifies the point of what is considered to be living.

The human fetus starts as a single living cell. Is 1 cell less “alive” than 50 cells? Or are 100 cells less alive than 100,000 cells? The fact is a human body is just a big conglomeration of many differentiated living cells working together. The point being is that many pro-abortionist say that life has not began at this early of development, but I assure you, it has, from the moment the two parent cells joined. Look it up in any Biology book. Killing the “cells” that make up a fetus, no matter how few, is still killing.

You could argue that life has begun in the first three weeks, so yes, you may say that it is killing, and that would be a valid idea. However, others may have the view that life begins after the formation of the major organs, and I think this is also a valid idea.

No. Life has began at the formation of the zygote. This is non-debatable. It is a scientific fact, it isn’t just an “idea”.

Your last point addresses that that zygote’s DNA is separate than that of the mother’s…therefore, it is not part of the mother’s “body”. This is one way of looking at the argument, but there is another way you could look at it.

During the period of time that the fetus is in the womb, the mother’s body is the “carrier” of the fetus. The mother is essentially the fetus’ “world”. As the owner of the world, for that period of time, the mother is like a “god”. What she puts in her body affects the fetus. If she does drugs during pregnancy, this will have a negative effect on the fetus. If she eats healthy and keeps stress at the minimum, this will have a direct positive effect on the fetus. Therefore, even if the DNA is not the same, it still does not take away from the fact that the mother “owns” the fetus’ “world”, and therefore, should be able to make decisions as to what she wants in the “world”. That is, unless we adopt laws that prevent the mother from making these decisions.

Firstly, the mother is not like a “God”, she is like a mother. And the mother does not “own” the fetus’ “world”, the fetus resides in this world our Creator has given her, she just so happens to be in another human during the time. And secondly, the mother can decide what to do with her own body (cells that have HER DNA, that’s the biological definition of a human), however the fetus is a separate conglomeration of cells with her own DNA that just so happen to be in the mother’s body.

If the mother decides to do drugs (makes her happy) and sacrifice the life of the fetus inside of it, she knows very well that her actions will potentially murder the child. If a murderer decides he wants to go on a shooting rampage (makes him happy), he knows very well that his actions can potentially murder people. Does the happiness of the murderer(s) trump the life of other humans?

The Declaration of Independence states that humans “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, and it is well understood that Americans have these rights as long as they are not infringing upon the same rights of others. The mother’s drinking problem does make her “happy”, but this right infringes upon the right to life of the baby.

I leave you with the following question for my last point: Is abortion something the government should control?

Well since abortion is the murdering of a baby, we can equate abortion to murder. So lets ask the question, “Is murder something the government should control?”

Abortion, a right for Women to Choose Murder?

I just began reading Gregg Jackson's Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, a book that presents hard facts (cited too) directly contradicting leftist claims, going from A-Z. This book is good. Naturally, A is for Abortion, so I thought I would share some points for YAFers that were particularly convincing.

Claim by the Left: "Legalized abortion reduces the abuse of unwanted children"
Response: Child abuse has actually increased since abortion became legal.

He references a study from the University of Southern California where they asked the parents of abused children whether they had planned and wanted this child. 91% of the abused children were considered by the parents as "wanted" at the time of pregnancy. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases are NOT caused by parents being forced to raise "unwanted" children, and they "would have been better off being aborted" like the left likes to claim. The facts are there. Ask me for the references if you want, or just buy the book. :)

Claim by the Left: "It's not fair to bring unwanted children into the world."
Response: It's not fair to stick surgical scissors in a baby's skull, suck out her brains with a vacuum, dismember her and throw her away in a garbage can either.

I think that point is good enough on its own. Jackson then iterates, "And since when does an individual's unalienable right to live depend upon somebody else 'wanting' them?" And emphasizing the USC research, child abuse is NOT connected AT ALL with whether the child was wanted or not.

Also, if you take Bio 172 here at U of M, a section of the course is devoted to fertilization and conception. They emphasize that at the time that the male and female haploid cells join to form the zygote, the genetic material in that living cell is completely different than the mothers.

The only common thing among cells in a living organism is their genetic material, DNA. Therefore, the claim that a woman has a right to do with her "body" what she wants is true (scientifically her body is the conglomeration of cells all sharing the same DNA), however the little zygote fetus is NOT her body, its DNA is completely separate than her own. It's science.

Therefore, the mother is not just killing cells in her own body, but murdering a human being. It is just ignorance if you believe otherwise.

Michigan Primary Results

With 100% of the precincts reporting, here are the following results:

Democratic Primary

Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates
Clinton 328,151 55% Zero
Uncommitted 236,723 40% Zero
Kucinich 21,708 4% Zero
Dodd 3,853 1% Zero
Gravel 2,363 0% Zero

Republican Primary

Candidate Votes Vote % Delegates
Romney 337,847 39% 23
McCain 257,521 30% 6
Huckabee 139,699 16% 1
Paul 54,434 6% 0
Thompson 32,135 4% 0
Giuliani 24,706 3% 0
Uncommitted 17,971 2% 0
Hunter 2,823 0% 0

Source: ABC News.com

According to Wikipedia.com, the population of Michigan including children is approximately 9,938,444 people.

85.3% of the population didn’t vote.

Now, I understand that a portion is people who just can’t vote, but it still calls into question: Are the people we electing truly representative of the concerns of Americans? And of the people that do vote, are they just mesmerized by “How good they would look as President” or that “They just sound so articulate!”, rather than looking at their ACTUAL VOTING RECORD?! It’s nice to know that America wants a President to match our materialistic lifestyle.

GO VOTE!

Nothing is more important than voting, this is the only way our government can be held accountable for their actions. If we do not vote, than it is up to a small minority of people who will run our great country. So go do some informed reading, and pick your candidate. Hopefully at least in the Republican Party.

Start of U of M's YAF Blog!

Dear fellow Conservatives and Libertarians,

This will be the official University of Michigan Young American's for Freedom Blog. Stories, events, thoughts, and anything related to fighting liberal lies on U of M's campus will be discussed.

We will be keeping you informed.

Go Blue!