Powered by WebRing.

Mommy First

October 24th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

I walked into the nursery the other morning and was struck by what I saw. It didn’t surprise me, as it has been a common sight in our home for about a decade. It did suddenly strike me for some reason, that there was my wife, nursing our nine month old son with our three year old daughter snuggled into her side. This is what she is here for. This is her role and her goal. A feminist might be offended by this observation but I know my wife won’t be.

I don’t know why things occur to me when they do. I don’t know why, after fourteen years of marriage and six children (five living and one miscarried,) I suddenly have a flash understanding with respect to my wife. She is a mommy first. I knew that but I guess I had never given it enough thought.

We have really good kids, which I think is a reflection of my wife. They have their most important need met, in abundance, by my wife. The love they receive from their mom is natural, yet amazing. All children deserve this magnitude of love and care. My children are very fortunate to receive it. I, as a father am very fortunate to have my children so loved.

Our oldest three are home-schooled by my wife and they help out with the younger two. They are being taught so well and learning such important lessons. They serve on the altar every Saturday evening at mass. They all wanted very much to do this. They receive an allowance for chores they each perform. This allowance and all money they receive is divided equally between savings, spending, and charity. They decide when to donate their charity money and to what cause. They learn compassion and sacrificial concern by example and by their own activities.

This is my wife fulfilling her purpose in life. She takes responsibility for the well-being of our entire family… usually one-handed since the other arm is holding a baby. I can’t imagine a person being happier in his or her work than my wife is in hers. She is serving her purpose. She is a mommy first, which is exactly what she always aspired to be.

Posted in Pro-life, General Common Sense | No Comments

Single Issue Versus Threshold Voting

October 20th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

The elites in the Republican Party carp about “single issue” voters, the ones that have principles that don’t coincide with their own. I suggest that they are not only wrong, they are hypocritical as well. Many of the talking heads espousing the Giuliani candidacy seem to represent true single issue voters. The arguments for Giuliani always seem to boil down to one of a few “single issues” that different sources provide:

Single issue #1: Rudy can beat Hillary!

Single issue #2: Rudy will be tough on terrorists!

Single issue #3: Rudy seems to be the Bush administration’s designee for a third term.

As a pro-life, social conservative I am not a “single issue” voter. I would be accused of being a “single issue” voter by Republican elites because I have a threshold. I disagree with Giuliani on many issues but abortion is my threshold issue. The fact that I cannot cast a vote for a person that believes the killing of a baby should be legal in any circumstance does not mean that otherwise Giuliani would even be a reasonable conservative choice!

Rudy has had his arm twisted into saying he would secure our borders. Of course anyone that has been paying attention realizes that he really doesn’t care to enforce immigration laws.

Conservative voters, I suppose, should disregard Rudy’s 1996 statement that he “ran as a Republican, and ran as a liberal.” After all, that was then and he wants our votes now. I for one am deeply moved!

I feel obliged to point out for what seems like the hundredth time to those that espouse “single issue” #1, Rudy wasn’t even a lock to beat Hillary for the senate seat from New York! Perhaps the movers and shakers at the top of the party should consider this little tidbit before they regurgitate their despicable line: “If you don’t vote for Giuliani, you are handing the election to Hillary. Who would be worse?”

Hello, is anyone conscious at the RNC? We have real conservatives running in this primary race and you are trying to set it up as a battle between Hillary and someone that is “not Hillary?” Is there any wonder the RNC can’t get donations? If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think the Republican elites seek failure. Maybe we should check to see if Mel Martinez is funneling money from China to Norman Hsu’s donor list. (I am kidding.)

How about we seek a victory for conservatism? How about we run a pro-life candidate that is tremendously strong on… wait for it…. here it comes… pay attention elites… illegal immigration! Remember the popular uprising when you elites tried to slide amnesty under the door and down our throats?

We have a pro-life, America first candidate, who also happens to be the namesake of The Hunter Fence!


Posted in Politics, Pro-life, General Common Sense | 2 Comments

Maine middle school encourages sex…

October 18th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

 and implies parents don’t have a need to know!

King Middle School in Portland Maine, with a student body mostly composed of 11-13 year olds, is now going to provide birth control pills and patches to its students. The sad story can be read here. The school board voted 5-2 to allow the school clinic to provide the pills and patches as long as the students have been examined by a physician or nurse practitioner and have a signed parental consent form.

The signed parental consent form is nearly meaningless given the fact that it is a general consent to allow the children to be treated by the clinic. Apparently supporters of this plan believe parents have no right to know what hormones their daughters are taking! Parents of 11 year old girls in Portland, Maine are being told to mind their own business, which does not include the possible sexual behavior of their pre-teen children.

Undoubtedly the 5 affirmative voting child sex proponents on the school board can’t wait to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in next year’s election. They apparently believe that “it takes a village” to raise children. Apparently they believe that the type of loss of innocence that comes with having sex is appropriate for 11 year old children. The village… idiots on the school board have taken a step which any decent person with a shred of common sense would view as having gone too far!

A very frightening aspect of situations like this is that these purveyors of the downfall of our society most likely believe they are doing the right thing. Parental control, common sense, and morality have become endangered species in these times. All three of these basic notions are constantly under attack and the results seem to be snow-balling.

How long before parents are prosecuted for civil rights violations stemming from not allowing their pre-teen children to sleep with their boyfriends or girlfriends in their own homes?

Posted in Politics, General Common Sense | No Comments

“No candy” signs for Baltimore sex offenders is a start…

October 11th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

I clicked on a Drudge Report headline “Police plan ‘no-candy’ signs at homes of sex offenders for Halloween…” because it looked like a police department was being proactive in protecting children from these beasts. The Baltimore police are indeed taking steps to minimize the chance contact that known sex offenders might have with trick-or-treating children. Unfortunately the signs that read “No Candy At This Residence” aren’t mandatory for the sex offenders.

The idea of the signs is a start, but a great deal more could be done to protect the children of Baltimore:

-The signs could be mandatory.

-There could be a  sign  that clearly states that the resident is a sex offender.

-There could be reasonable laws and sentences that actually protect the potential victims by not unleashing these monsters back on society.

I would also hope that the parents are doing their part to keep their children protected. Two simple steps can be taken by the parents:

-Parents can review the sex offender registry for their area.

-Parents should be accompanying their children while trick or treating.

-Common sense dictates that parents take their children only to houses of people they know!

Posted in General Common Sense | 3 Comments

George Will says it is vanity to vote pro-life

October 7th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

I sometimes try to stomach “This Week with George Stephanoupolos” because I think it is important to keep up with the most public branches of the Clinton team.

During the Roundtable segment moments ago George Will said there is a “certain vanity in these so-called values voters.” He said everyone votes their values and that social conservatives aren’t as important as they think they are.

According to this position, NARAL members are to be viewed as “values voters,” as are pedophiles and rapists! Does that sound extreme? Apparently in today’s moral relativism driven society there is no extreme. That isn’t exactly true, social conservatives are viewed as extremists, or according to George Will: vain extremists that don’t matter.

Personally, I am inspired by Duncan Hunter in a way that I have never been before. (Disclaimer: I was 10 in 1980.) I will do all I can to help as many people as possible become aware of this great man. This does not mean that I am all or nothing in the general election, however. If the Right Choice isn’t nominated I may be able to cast a vote for a lesser candidate… unless that candidate doesn’t believe in protecting the most innocent of lives!

Arrogant “moderates” and others that don’t really care too much about this “little wedge issue” will deride our stance as foolish or unrealistic. Deride away. The concept is so simple and so basic that one can’t help but wonder what motivates those that oppose it. The abortion issue is literally a life or death issue! There is no room for moderation. We as a society have incredibly soft sentences for the most heinous of crimes, sentences seemingly designed to facilitate repeat offenses, yet we don’t seem to care about the slaughter of millions of innocent Americans.

What do you say we don’t let the media decide who we nominate? What do you say we make it as clear as possible that a man that has such an enormous flaw (thinking it should be legal to kill babies) can not be voted for by those who are concerned with protecting those babies.

For those who opine that refusing to vote for Rudy in the general is equivalent to voting for Hillary, I suggest to you that the same might be said for nominating a pro-choice candidate that is also extremely questionable at best on many other conservative issues!


Posted in Politics, Pro-life, General Common Sense | 3 Comments

A perceived lack of courage behind the microphone

October 7th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

The presidential election in November of 2008 is over a year away and some conservative talk show hosts seem to be using this fact as a pass for not practicing what they preach.

The right candidate, in my opinion, is not a high dollar name and therefore is not widely known. Given the reach of conservative talk radio, the hosts could choose to use their platforms to help the right candidate become more widely known. Granted the shows are their shows and this is just one man’s opinion, but I believe the majority of conservative talk show hosts are doing their audiences a disservice.

I find it curious that they preach conservative values and rightfully rail against liberal absurdity, and yet they seem to be saying if Rudy has the money and the name, he’ll be the nominee. They also seem to be saying when Rudy is the nominee, we are going to accuse you pro-life conservatives of de-facto voting for Hillary by refusing to vote for Rudy. Of course if one of the other money laden big names win the nomination, that’s fine with them too.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that one talk show host has been fair to all the candidates. Thank you Laura Ingraham! I have to wonder about the rest. Why aren’t they taking advantage of their golden opportunity? They have huge audiences. They can reach millions of people, yet despite their claims they don’t really seem to believe conservatism can win.

Is there a fear of taking a stand? If they devote some air-time to the conservative candidate and he doesn’t get the nomination, does that make them look bad in the industry? Is it a lack of common sense? Do these hosts remember how big the amnesty situation was? With great respect to Tom Tancredo, the RIGHT CHOICE, Duncan Hunter is pretty strong and outspoken on the issue. The Hunter Fence is called that for a reason! Hillary wants to give the illegals amnesty. Rudy is only now reluctantly saying we should enforce the border. Who do they think can reasonably paint Hillary into a corner on this issue, Rudy or Hunter?

If I could have the ear of the talk show hosts I would implore them to research all the candidates and take a stand with the one that represents their principles. Again, my opinion is that the right candidate is Duncan Hunter, but the most important thing is that people know who they are supporting and that they do so in an informed manner.

We don’t have to sit by and wait for the biggest bank account to win the nomination. We can all do our part to spread the word about our favorite candidates regardless of who he or she is. It would be great for America if the people with the voices were to practice what they preach and inform their audiences about the conservatives running for president.

Of course Rush would call this post “whining.” You decide.


Posted in Politics, Pro-life, General Common Sense | 2 Comments

My Country - Not Yours!

October 6th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

Cross posted from Freedom Fighter Radio.net:




And, because I make this statement

DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration.
Welcome to come through like everyone else has.
Get a sponsor!
Get a place to lay your head!
Get a job!
Live by OUR rules!
Pay YOUR taxes!



If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone,

When will AMERICAN’S STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We’ve gone so far the other way … bent over backwards not to
offend anyone. But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN
that’s being offended! Get on your bandwagon and let your

elected government representatives how you feel.

WAKE UP America.

If you agree … pass this on.
if you don’t agree … just delete it and remain part

of the problem.

____________ _________ _________ _________ _______
We can not permit foreign powers the unchallenged invasion of our nation.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at- gmail-dot- com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Posted in Politics, General Common Sense, CAII | No Comments

Free health insurance would be nice.

September 29th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

I have to admit that I think it would be nice to have free health insurance. After all, health care is something a person needs. There are other things a person needs and it would be nice if they were provided free of charge as well:

  • Food
  • Water
  • Shelter
  • Clothing
  • Primary education
  • Secondary education
  • Higher education
  • Trash removal
  • Transportation
  • Car insurance
  • Homeowner’s or renter’s insurance
  • Telephone service
  • Internet access
  • Electricity
  • Heat in the winter
  • Air conditioning in the summer
  • Companionship
  • Recreation
  • Exercise
  • Housekeeping
  • Vehicle maintenance

The above list is by no means complete, but on some level they are all needed items. I for one think it would be nice if they were provided free of charge! Lets just do it… one, two, three, snap… abrakadabra… swish and flick…

Alright, I need help! What is the magic spell that will make all our needs be met free of charge? What’s that? With socialized medicine we still get to pay for it but it will be run by the same government that runs all the other inefficient federal programs? I still need help, what is the incentive for researching medical breakthroughs? Or is that going to take place in a vacuum too?

When we get to the free food, will there be long lines for government cheese? Will transportation be provided to and from the cheese lines?

As for the production of the items and services we are provided, will the people that produce them be paid? If so, by who? Oh right, the government will pay them or they won’t need paying because their needs will be met by government benevolence.

My head is starting to hurt trying to figure out how this will all work. I still can’t grasp how the socialists who never saw a tax they didn’t like expect to continue to collect taxes from businesses that will be driven out of business or out of the country.


Posted in Politics, General Common Sense | 5 Comments

Who should be the next President of The United States?

September 21st, 2007 by Sam Pierce

The new Riverbender.com ”Left Turn - Right Turn” Columns answer that question from the writers’ perspectives. The Left Turn writer prefers John Edwards while I know Duncan Hunter is the Right Choice! Here is a portion of ny column:

The 2008 presidential campaign seems to have gotten underway much earlier than I remember any campaign in the past. It is also apparent that the votes cast next November will possibly be as important as any other votes in our entire history. The state of our nation, culture, and security seems to be in serious jeopardy. We as an electorate have an opportunity to play a role in securing the future for our children and grandchildren. We can rise up and cast our votes for the right candidate, not necessarily the one that has the most money or the best name recognition. We can cast our votes for Congressman Duncan Hunter (R. CA.)

At a time when politicians seem more like slick salesmen and shameless panderers than noble leaders, Duncan Hunter is refreshingly different. Instead of testing the air with moistened finger to detect the wind of opinion in front of any given audience, Congressman Hunter has a solid record of championing the issues and values that are indeed vital to our society.

Click the banner to read the rest:


Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Batgirl, uncaped crusader for PETA

September 19th, 2007 by Sam Pierce

From Foxnews.com:

Alicia Silverstone to Appear Nude in PETA Commercial

What does an actress do when she has been out of the limelight for a decade? What is the key to getting attention? Posing or appearing nude, the refuge of washed up actresses and former teen pop stars.

Perhaps the success of the movie “Clueless” will be repeated in the commercial “Clothesless.” PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) is hoping that seeing Batgirl unmasked and unclothed will encourage vegetarianism. I am not sure how skinny dipping former teen stars encourage people not to eat meat but I could see other potential messages for this commercial:

- Man made global warming has made it so hot that even Alicia Silverstone can’t bear to swim in a stifling bikini.

- Her swimsuit was made in China.

- Bush lied, so get naked in public!

- Big clothing is just as bad as Big oil!

- Look at me, I used to be famous!

- Keep your clothes off my body!

- Women are not objects!

I guess this commercial will have an impact after all. I should never have doubted artistic expression. Come to think of it, we should see if PETA can get taxpayer funding to produce more of these public service announcements.

Posted in General Common Sense | No Comments

« Previous Entries

CLICK TO DONATE: huntereleader.jpg
Click here to join IllinoisForHunter
Click to join IllinoisForHunter











  • gotchina.png

  • Coalition Against Illegal Immigration

    Supporting Members

  • Ann Coulter
  • CAII-Coalition Against Illegal Immigration
  • Cassy Fiano
  • Drudge
  • Duncan Hunter 08
  • Foxnews
  • Human Events
  • Keeping It In Perspective
  • Laura Ingraham
  • Newsmax
  • Riverbender.com
  • Six Degrees of Global Warming
  • Small Victories USA
  • Spirit Of Liberty