I am a little puzzled by this statement, since the Democrat's presidential candidate and platform are pro-abortion too.

The Roman Catholic group, Fidelis, says Barack Obama's selection of pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden to be his V.P. running mate "is a slap in the face to Catholic voters" and poses a major challenge for American Catholics.

In a press release sent out overnight, Fidelis president, Brian Burch, declared that Barack Obama has "re-opened a wound among American Catholics" by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician like Joe Biden.

According to Burch, the American Catholic bishops have made it clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. 

The article goes on to state Joe Biden's "steadfast support for legal abortion" in the US Senate. 

This same issue came up in the 2004 election when John Kerry "sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive communion." 

The Catholic group's president, Brian Burch stated, "Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters."

According to Burch, "The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as foundational and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy."

I would agree with Mr. Burch that this issue is foundational.

What I don't quite understand is why would a pro-life Catholic (or a pro-life voter from any other religion) be voting for Barack Obama--the most anti pro-life candidate? 

Rate this Story (1 Star = Not so Good -and- 5 Stars = Excellent!)

-->

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

 

I heard Dr. Alveda King speak yesterday on Vicki McKenna's radio program. Alveda is following in her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s footsteps in speaking out for civil rights for all. But the issue near and dear to her heart is one that her uncle could not even imagine--civil rights for the unborn.

Dr. King will be the keynote speaker for the Pregnancy Help Center fund raising Gala this Thursday, March 6, at Brookfield Suites. Contact Julie Caltreaux: 414-687-1691

Her mission is to make people aware that you cannot help the Dream survive while murdering children. She then gave the statistics on Planned Parenthood's genocide against Black babies. I had heard Vicki McKenna speak about this before, so  it caught my attention.

Vicki asked Alveda if she was going to vote for Barack Obama for President. Alveda stated she voted for Huckabee in the primary. (Huckabee is the most pro-life candidate.)

Dr. King then added if you are automatically voting Barack just because he is Black, go back and read King's I Have a Dream speech. His (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's) Community is not based on color of his skin but the contend of his character.

Vicki brought up how Sen. Obama used his Christian faith to defend his position on abortion and mentioned that while in the Illinois Senate, he wouldn't even vote for basic comfort care for babies that survive botched abortions. (If you are unfamiliar, read the post and excerpts below.)

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image:

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act...  Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

Alveda also mentioned Barack's Sermon on the Mount speech, where Barack stated that Jesus approved of same sex marriage. "What flawed reasoning" she said. I see some flaws in his content, she added.

Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ... St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful. (Hardly obscure, Romans 1: 25-28 is specific, plus the Bible teaches that all scripture is inspired.)

Dr. Alveda King is the perfect person to address these issues. She continues the great message of what America should be all about: We should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I hope people will look into the "content of their character" in their own lives as well as in their candidates.

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

.

One reader sent me this link: Obama and Infanticide

The technical often precedes the ethical. For me, the lines of what is legal get very blurry when you look at another side of the issue.  Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, Portraits of Love

I posted this Last minute dirty trick by a school board member? the day of the election.

These "Vote YES for Schools" signs with the spray paint on them popped up all over town on April 3rd. They were clearly from some other referendum or school issue; that is why the spray paint is covering up something.

Several of the signs were in front of the Century Centre property on Greenfield, and when I stopped to look at them, they did not seem to be compliant with campaign sign regulations. The disclaimer was not from either group registered for this referendum, VoteNOApril3 or LEGACY, and it did not list who the treasurer was for this new group. All it had on it was, Paid for and Authorized by Elmbrook Cares and then a sticker with Steve Schwei 262-780-0581.

Since Steve Schwei is my school board representative, I thought this was in violation of the policy that the board was not to advocate for the referendum.

So I contacted Brad Schimel, Schimel.Brad@mail.da.state.wi.us , our District Attorney for Waukesha County.

I am including all of his correspondence so you can see what the campaign regulations are. They were not what I expected.


Dear Mr. Prast,

Thank you for your email. You raise several issues, which I will address individually.

It is not illegal for Mr. Schwei to advocate for or against a referendum when acting as a private citizen. I do not have enough information to conclude that he is acting in any official capacity. The fact that he is on the school board does not prohibit him from taking actions as a citizen. (The same rule that applied to Matt Gibson addressing the Common Council about the referendum as a private citizen.)

Before I could determine whether Elmbrook Cares or Steve Schwei committed a campaign finance violation, I would need to know whether they have received contributions, made disbursements or incurred obligations in excess of $25 during this calendar year, and if so, whether they filed a registration statement. You stated that you do not think that Elmbrook Cares filed a registration statement. Did they?

You talk about many illegal signs having been posted by the "Yes group." This is the first I have heard of any complaint. Is there more information that you wish me to consider? What is illegal in nature about the sign you have posted?

I am curious about the blue spray paint on the sign posted on your blog. Do you know who painted that on the sign and what it is covering up?

Brad Schimel

Me to Brad,

They were used for a previous campaign I believe, maybe the last referendum from 2000. I believe they must have had the issue they were for under the spay paint. They are all like that.

So you are saying we could save our vote no signs and not register again if we did not collect any more funds? I thought the disclaimer was incorrect since it says it was paid for and authorized by Elmbrook Cares. Steve Schwei name and phone number, but does not say who Steve Schwei is in relation to Elmbrook Cares. Usually it says, John Doe, Treasurer or Candidate.

The illegally placed yes signs are up to 9 per property. In Brookfield we only allow 1 per address per street face. Last mayoral campaign Cindy Kilkenny was given 10 days to remove her overly large signs from private residences. This referendum is not being enforced that way. The police will remove the excess signs or those placed on city property, but only if a resident calls in the offending address.

Kyle

Brad back to me,

Mr. Prast,

The spray paint looks pretty shabby. Maybe they were trying to look impoverished. Apparently that message was not persuasive.

In terms of reusing signs, yes, if a group/individual saves them and reuses them, they could potentially come under the $25 expenditure threshold and avoid the requirement that they register.

Unless the group was required to register and failed to do so properly, I think the disclaimer is adequate. It certainly gives sufficient information from which one could identify who is responsible for the sign.

The restrictions on the placement and number of signs is a matter for the municipal ordinances.

Brad Schimel

So there you have it. Outside of the signs being place too near the roadway (I don't know if the property owners gave permission or not), Mr. Schimel says they were OK.

As for the official Vote Yes signs, after the replacements came in, the new ones were still placed in a non-compliant way 2 and 3 to a property. But that's a municipal ordinance.



I do thank you for all your correspondence. I have enjoyed hearing from you. Keep the emails coming! Someone did send an anonymous comment that they were for the referendum (the only one ever received). I do want to respond to that and hope to get to it soon, but today I need to attend to some of the many things I did not have time for

Certainly every parent wants to know their children are safe while at school. The district knows this too and makes it one of their reasons to vote for the referendum.

On Elmbrook’s “Fact” sheet #1, it states: “While it is now standard equipment in most high schools, neither Brookfield Central nor Brookfield East has a closed circuit security television system for monitoring activity in the hallways, common areas, or parking lots and for monitoring access to over 60 outside doors at each school.”

There is one BIG FACT missing from this sheet. The FACT that next year, the cameras will be installed regardless of referendum passage. Principal LaBonte told us this little known fact when I toured Central last month.

Here is another FACT you may be interested in. Other area schools have been in the process of getting their cameras installed for a few years now, working their way, school by school through their districts--without a referendum.

Time to dispel another fallacy: These cameras are not to protect against Stranger Danger or terrorist intrusion. I think when most people hear the words security system or closed circuit security cameras they immediately conjure up the image of the security checkpoint at the Pentagon!

THIS is NOT what these cameras are for. These cameras are primarily to monitor STUDENT activity, not STRANGER activity.

A recent Brookfieldnow article stated, “In a time when many high schools around the nation have dealt with incidents of school violence, a closed-circuit security television system is necessary to monitor activity in the hallways, common areas and parking lots, according to principals.”

Remember that most high school violence is caused by students, not strangers. The cameras record motion in the hallways or wherever they are mounted, and that information is stored for future use. As a rule, it is not monitored continually during the day as we would think of a closed circuit television system. It is only there if there is an incident, they can see who was involved.

While on the mechanical tour of Central, the guide told us that one of the stairways in the 3 story addition was seldom used. I asked why, since I had heard the other stairways were so crowded. He hesitated, then said, they were too isolated and things happened in the stairwells.

Whether we are talking hanky-panky or bullying or drug deals, I don’t know. I do know going back to the concept of a hall monitor might help. In any event, this is not a STRANGER problem; it is a STUDENT problem.

The real question is: Why has Elmbrook neglected this “need” until now?

Could it be the same reason they have neglected other standard maintenance issues? They are trying to present a needier picture of our high schools than there really is, and in the case of security cameras, they will be installed next year—even without the referendum.

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

When I was on the mechanical tour last weekend, I did watch the “informative” video playing in the lobby. (I cannot call it unbiased.) I kept waiting for the commercial to break in.... (Read this in your best announcer voice.)

...And now a word from our sponsor, your Elmbrook School District.

...They brought you referendum, after referendum, after referendum, after referendum, from 1991 to 1995, until the 5th one for Swanson finally passed.

...The ones who brought you the Swanson Swap that you only found out about before the fact because of a leak to the press.

...The same gang who, after the community spoke out loud and clear to save Swanson, tried to change our school district from a Unified to a Consolidated School District so they wouldn’t need public permission to sell school property ever again. (That measure failed.)

...The same group who purposely neglected maintaining our high schools for at least the past 6 years and then have the nerve to whine about our school’s condition. (This is solvable.)

...Don’t forget our board’s approval of that “needed” 4K program, overriding the publics' displeasure of adding another $67 to our tax bills. It required dipping into our reserves to implement. (It still has some openings, and they said it was such a need?)

...And, last but not least, don’t forget my favorite: the $2.5 million dollar tax bite (defeasance) they took out of your wallet last year on your 2006 property tax bill. NOT TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, but to invest!

When we voted in 2000 for the 2 new grade schools, we approved that referendum for $17,900,000 not an additional pre funding investment scheme.

Anyway, I thought you should remember who the SPONSOR is of this referendum.

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Someone gave me their Vote Yes postcard yesterday, so I could take a look at it. (I did not receive one because I do not have children in the district.)

The first thing I noticed was that it was an appeal to the emotions. It asks: ...if you would FEEL compelled to help. It then portrays a list of below average and failing grades for various components in the high schools.

I don’t know what they based these grades on. To me a failing grade would mean it does not meet minimal standards—that it does not function at a reasonable expectation. Example: Mechanical Systems: “F” to me would mean we consistently have interrupted or inadequate service for heat, lights, water, electricity, etc. Anyway, that is their opinion; these grades are not based on facts. The school district's own literature contradicts those bad grades, stating that the schools have been "well maintained" (within operating budgets).

But this is one FACT they got WRONG: No opinion, it is simply incorrect.
And it's in regard to a major component: the price.

They state that the COST is roughly 50 cents a day.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

I added up all of the columns on the district’s cost calculator for referendum question #1 and #2, and it totaled $6,837.65 for an average Brookfield home of $335,000. (That is the number the district has been using, if you would add Elm Grove’s average home value into the mix, that number would be higher).

The postcard also listed various other problems below the report card that I don’t believe are accurate. Hopefully I will address them in a future piece.

I realize the question of the high school referendums is something that can be looked at from both sides: the proverbial water glass half full or empty. BUT one must portray the fact of the glass’ contents accurately or the merit of the argument does not hold water!

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

ONLY 23 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!


A reader told me they have tables set up in the halls of East to register 18 year old students to vote. They probably are doing it at Central too.

Maybe they do this prior to every election? But speaking as a parent, I would not like this procedure of registering at school, because I could not share in this milestone event.

Registering to vote was one of those important parent/child firsts for me to witness: first steps, first day of school, first time behind the wheel of the family car, first car, first vote.

What do you think?

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

There is no such thing as a free lunch-or breakfast for that matter. Someone always pays for it, and there is always a subliminal reason for supplying a free lunch.

So why is our Elmbrook School District mulling over the possibility of plying you with pancakes or pasta? Or serving cheese and crackers or doughnuts and coffee? Because they are hoping to influence you to vote yes for their $108,800,000.00 referendums.

The very act of breaking bread together is compelling. Why do you think salesmen wine and dine potential clients? Why do you think businesses supply the free lunch or treats on certain days for their customers? (This is common in the trades-electrical, plumbing, or tool suppliers etc.) They are hoping the customer will feel a little cheap coming into their business to eat their free fare and then leave without placing an order. Only a real cheapskate would come in and do that!

There is a certain portion of the population that may feel sheepish about coming to the school district's Saturday Soirees too--especially if they are undecided. I am guessing the district is hoping, like the tradesman eating the supplier's free lunch and then feeling obligated to make a purchase, the diners might be influenced to vote yes for the referendum.

According to the Journal article, "Referendum opponent Jon Wolff said, 'They should not be spending taxpayer dollars to do it (meals)'." Good point. The district is not to overtly promote the yes vote, just present the facts. They have a budget of $49,000 to do just that. The $49,000 is our taxpayer money! (Is it any wonder we never have enough money to properly maintain our buildings?) If influencing voters is not the motivation for the free meal or snack, then why have any food or refreshments at all? It is not like voters will be there all day.

"Smokes for Votes" was a black eye on Milwaukee. Pretending that a free meal or snack is not meant to influence voters does not speak well of our school district either.