Sunday, May 31, 2009

Abortion Doctor George Tiller Murdered at Church

NRLC - just sent me the info...

National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life.
Further,the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.
Operation Rescue also condemns this act of violence:
The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which runs a "Tiller Watch" feature on its website, released a statement condemning the shooting. "We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."
David Bereit, National Director of 40 Days for Life, issued the following statement about the slaying of George Tiller at a Wichita, Kansas church:
"As a nationwide organization dedicated to peaceful and prayerful solutions to the crisis of abortion, 40 Days for Life is shocked and dismayed by the shooting death of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller. Such violence against a fellow human being is never justified, and 40 Days for Life condemns this senseless act. We encourage people of faith to join in prayer for all those affected by this unconscionable action."

Focus on the Family founder and chairman emeritus James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement Sunday on the slaying of late-term abortionist George Tiller:

"We are shocked by the murder of George Tiller, and we categorically condemn the act of vigilantism and violence that took his life. America has from its foundation respected the rule of law, by which every citizen is guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those constitutional rights are forfeited only when crimes have been committed, and the perpetrator is charged and found guilty by a jury of his or her peers in a court of law. "Tiller recently faced serious charges related to the killing of babies in violation of the law, by the most grotesque procedures administered without anesthetics or compassion. We profoundly regretted the outcome of his legal case, believing the doctor had the blood of countless babies on his hands. Nevertheless, he was acquitted by the court and declared "not guilty" in the eyes of the law. That is our system, and we honor it. "Our condolences are extended to the Tiller family. The person or persons responsible for his death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."


The Pro-Life Action League joins the entire pro-life movement in condemning this act of violence. See the League response here:

In a press statement, League National Director Joe Scheidler condemned the murder and declared that we must seek to convert abortionists like Tiller.

"We don't know yet what motivated the killer," said Scheidler, "but any act of violence in the name of protecting the lives of unborn children is a betrayal of the pro-life movement, which proclaims the sanctity of all human life."

Violence Is Not the Answer—Conversion Is

...The League is now bracing for the onslaught of accusations—already beginning—that the pro-life movement is responsible for Tiller's murder. Nothing could be further form the truth. "Those who resort to such acts of violence have always had little or no connection with the pro-life movement," Scheidler remarked. "They lack the faith and courage it takes to fight abortion effectively."

Moreover, no babies will be saved by resorting to violence. "Someone else will now perform the abortions that Tiller had scheduled this week," Scheidler said. "The only difference this killing makes is that pro-life groups will be dragged through the mud."

I have to agree as well & condemn this act of violence. This is no way to stop abortionists or abortions. George Tiller was evil, but two wrongs do not make a right.

What happened??? excerpts and photo from Huffington Post (for more info click link)


A Wichita city official says a suspect is in custody in the shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller.

The city official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the case. The official did not provide additional details.

An attorney for Tiller, Dan Monnat, says the doctor was shot Sunday (May 31) as he served as an usher during morning services at Reformation Lutheran Church. Monnat said Tiller's wife, Jeanne, was in the choir at the time of the shooting.

excerpts below from LifeNews -Full story at LifeNews.com
Tiller, who was 67 and one of the few abortion practitioners in the United States to do late-term abortions, was killed Sunday morning at Reformation Lutheran Church shortly after 10 a.m. According to police and local officials, Tiller was shot in the lobby of the church while distribuing church bulletins to attendees. The gunman shot Tiller, confronted to church members and fled the scene in a late-model vehicle registered in another part of the state of Kansas. Hours after the news of the shooting, authorities indicated they had apprehended the alleged shooter near Gardner, Kansas at around 2 p.m. local time.Wichita police Capt. Brent Allred had said that the FBI and the KBI were called in to assist officials with apprehending the shooter.
More links below:

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Why would anyone want to be a Republican

Why would anyone want to be a Republican (fantastic article!! Here are some excerpts below - click the link to read the entire article... worth the read)

...First off, for those of you who despise Republicans, please realize the Republican party doesn’t divide Americans into categories and then claim to have a big tent because of all the compartments people can fit into. No, instead they truly do have a big welcoming tent that all Americans qualify to fit into regardless of race, class, or sexual preference. The only qualification involved is personal philosophy. Your own choice of personal philosophy, nothing else, is what should determine whether or not you will become a Republican.

The philosophy involves your work ethic, a willingness to pull your own weight and to be the best you can be. Achievement itself is what is appreciated, recognized, and rewarded while, once again, class, sexual preference, and race are ignored as irrelevant. Each individual is rewarded according to his or her contribution, not lumped with a bunch of other individuals and then cookie-cutter labeled as a group that needs special help from the government.

In America, you have the privilege of using yourself to your own advantage. It is liberating, even exhilarating, to know that no laws can stop you from pursuing whatever you choose. Like Thomas Jefferson, a Republican at heart who believed in civic virtue and economic responsibility, his party today celebrates that you can claim your personal power and thumb your nose at measly government handouts. On the other hand, if you wait for favors from the Democrats that you think you are owed, you poison yourself into a helpless situation. You willingly surrender to government power over your destiny. ....

Conservatives love and admire our military. Relatedly, they want our country protected from illegal aliens while encouraging the success of each individual immigrant as long as they learn our language, respect our nation, and obey our laws. Violent crime is intolerable and so they believe in capital punishment for those proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Most conservatives are charitable; they want to help those who truly need help, believing the private sector and faith-based organizations are more effective in helping the poor than government is. They believe teaching the failing theory of evolution is fair as long as Creationism is taught along with it while liberals simply want to be unfair and only have their side heard. They know their random fish-and-monkey theory cannot win hearts and minds when in competition with the facts of Intelligent Design.

Friday, May 29, 2009

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize him as the foremost leader in change management. Lou changed the way America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett



Chuck Norris adds his own comments on Why Obama Scares Him too - click here to read

Thursday, May 28, 2009

More about Judge Sonia Sotomayor


President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on "empathy" instead of neutrally in applying the law. President Obama highlighted “empathy”-- an appreciation of the "real world" implications of their decisions (a loosey-goosey standard) rather than loyalty to Constitutional principles and law.

Forget that justice should be blind... Throw out the Constitution...

Now, we see what that means -- a judge who makes it clear she decides cases on feelings, not facts. President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor who will replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter is a radical judicial activist who readily admits that she applies her personal political agenda when deciding cases. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.

In a speech at Duke Law School at 2005, Sotomayor said that her own Court of Appeals -- not the democratically elected legislature -- is “where policy is made.” Taking such “judicial action,” she said in a 2004 speech, is part of the “heroics of judges today; it may dwell in protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.” Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color," which she believes should "affect our decisions." She went on to say in that same speech, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."
Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:

Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.





First, they knew that embracing the idea of legislating from the bench–of a judge substituting his or her policy preferences for those of the elected branch of government–is the kind of frank admission that can get a judge into hot water. But second they laughed because it was their little secret–that while "progressive" judges must verbally play the game, they oughtn't to let niceties such as separation of powers get in the way of coming to the "correct" outcome. It's exactly what President Obama has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us.

The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to ask tough and thorough questions to Sotomayor regarding her judicial philosophy and temperament when the confirmation hearings get underway this summer.

FYI -The poor quality of Sotomayor's decisions is also reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.

For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise," Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest told LifeNews.com. "Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground."

"She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue," Yoest added.

"This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations supported by the vast majority of Americans like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance," Yoest explained.

(from Lifenews)

Leading Pro-abortion groups are already lining up to endorse Obama’s choice. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor would replace outgoing pro-abortion Justice David Souter, and likely keep the court's apparent 5-4 pro-abortion majority.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, was one of the first to chime in with her backing for the appeals court judge. “President Obama has selected a nominee with a distinguished record of professional accomplishments as a judge, prosecutor, and community leader," she said in a statement. " This impressive personal biography signals that she possesses an understanding of how the law affects everyday people’s lives,” Keenan said. “We are encouraged by the strong support she receives from her peers and other legal scholars and the fact that the Senate has twice confirmed her for federal judgeships." The National Organization for Women (NOW) said it would “celebrate” the nomination with a “Confirm Her” ad campaign.

Does Sotomayor's richness of experience include abortion? We know from numerous polls and studies that Hispanics in the United States overwhelmingly disagree with the notion of abortion on demand. Abortion is not a part of their cultural richness--it is not a part of their identity as Latinos.

A new survey conducted by a popular Latino social networking web site finds a plurality of Hispanic Americans believe abortions should be illegal. The informal poll confirms others which show a majority of Hispanics do not support abortion, would back limits and want most abortions made illegal. ... "Though some Hispanic political groups back abortion, the vast majority of us know what's right," Rojas explained. "We know that every child has a place en nuestras casas y nuestras familias -- our homes and families. We know and cherish and honor the sanctity of motherhood and of life.".... Other polls confirm a majority of Hispanics take a pro-life position.


Want to know more about Judge Sotomayor?

Here are some interesting facts/links to learning more about this "empathetic" nominee:
  • Judge Sotomayor is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents and grew up in the South Bronx. She was diagnosed young with diabetes and lost her father in childhood. She has a Catholic background, but it appears she is not terribly observant. She was briefly married during her college years, but was divorced and has remained single.
  • In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black. )
Judge Sotomayor apparently "empathized" more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.

Let's hope she's as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.

In the now-famous firefighters' case,
Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. ...

But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions. ....

So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one. ...

Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.

Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, ....

If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.

But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups.
excerpts from Ann Coulter (click link to read entire article)

AND.....

  • Judge Sotomayor judicial decisions have been pure politics, reflecting her “blind political allegiance” to radical environmentalists.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, ruled in a 2007 case that power companies must protect “fish and other aquatic organisms” from being sucked into cooling vents regardless of the costs, saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not allowed to use a cost-benefit analysis in measuring power companies’ compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on April 1 of this year that a cost-benefit analysis was entirely appropriate when judging whether a power company was following the law. ...

The Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor was in error and that the EPA could continue using a cost-benefit analysis when enforcing environmental regulations.
“We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards,” Scalia wrote. “The Court of Appeals,” Scalia ruled, “was therefore in error.”

Steve Milloy, a lawyer, author, and founder of JunkScience.com, told CNSNews.com that Sotomayor’s decision was pure politics, saying it reflected Judge Sotomayor’s “blind political allegiance” to radical environmentalists.
“This was ultimately a political job, where a narrow interpretation of the law is going to help or be consistent with her politics--that’s what she’s going to do,” said Milloy. “Where a more expansive view is going to help with her politics, she’s going to adopt that. She’s going to find a way to side with whatever her political views are, regardless of the law.”

“This doesn’t have anything to do with the law or the environment,” said Milloy. “These are all political jobs now. I can only describe that [ruling] as blind political allegiance to the Greens.”
to read entire article from CNSNews.com click here.

AND.....
  • Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor racist?
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. ...

As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
excerpts from WorldNetDaily

AND....
  • Judge Sotomayor ruling against protecting our rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. .....
read entire article here: CNSNews.com

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

A Transformative Proposal for Health Care: The Patients Choice Act

Republican lawmakers have proposed what they describe as a revenue-neutral, free-market-based alternative to universal health care. (click here to read entire article)
The bill is a response to the plan supported by President Barack Obama that would establish a separate government insurance program to compete with private insurance programs.

In contrast, the Republican proposal -- called “The Patients Choice Act” -- would redirect the $300 billion already spent on federal subsidies for employer-based insurance to annual tax credits of $5,700 for families and $2,300 for individuals to buy private insurance.

“There is no question we cut the uninsured in half,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told CNSNews.com during a conference call Wednesday. “This is revenue neutral. Why would President Obama not support it? His plan costs another $1.5 trillion (over 10 years). Our bill forces insurance companies to have to compete.”

As reported by Newt Gingrich: (Actual Solutions for Health Care instead of the problems Socialization Health Care will create)

While the nation waits to see the plan President Obama will put forward, last week Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Representatives Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) introduced The Patients' Choice Act of 2009.

They should be applauded for their leadership. The Patients' Choice Act is a serious, transformative proposal that, if enacted, would dramatically improve our health care system and the health of individual Americans.

Unlike government-centered plans that empower bureaucracies, The Patients' Choice Act empowers individuals.

Empowering Individuals Instead of Bureaucracies

The Patients' Choice Act takes on the toughest challenges we face: improving individual health and managing chronic disease; delivering the best quality care; expanding affordable coverage to every American; and putting Medicare and Medicaid on solid, sustainable ground.

And every idea starts in exactly the right place: with the individual. Individuals should be empowered and encouraged to decide for themselves what is best for them. From choosing what doctor to see to what insurance to buy to what course of treatment to take, only an individual-centered health care system will bring about the real change we need.

According to its sponsors, the main goals of The Patients' Choice Act are these:
  • Emphasize Prevention: Focusing on prevention not only leads to better health but lowers long term costs.

  • Create a Market that Works for Patients: The Patients' Choice Act gives insurance companies incentives to cover chronically sick patients, provides businesses transparent rules, and gives patients convenient and affordable options.

  • Guarantee a Choice of Coverage Options: Patients can choose from a variety of private insurance plans.

  • Insist on Fairness for Every Patient.

  • Fairly Compensate Patient Injuries: The bill creates a legal system that serves the interests of the injured, not the interests of trial attorneys.

  • No Tax Increases or New Government Spending: For each American, our country already spends almost twice as much as other industrialized countries spend on health care. It's time we got something better for our money.

  • Restore Accountability to Government Programs: Our children and grandchildren will face future tax increases to pay for the $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the Medicare program alone unless something changes. And, according to some estimates, fraud and waste account for 10 percent of all health care spending. That's approximately $100 billion each year.

  • Include Ideas for Governors and States: Washington has proven time and again that a one-size-fits-all mandate won't work. True health reform must include governors, states, and every American citizen.

It's Time to Move From Ideas and Options to Real Solutions

The Patients' Choice Act complements the thoughtful work done so far by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican member. They have published three detailed papers exploring what reform options are being considered in three major areas: improving the delivery of care, expanding coverage, and paying for reform. They've invited public comment throughout the process and worked with industry representatives, in public hearings and in private meetings.

10 Essential Principles of Health Care Reform

CHT has developed the following 10 principles which we believe must be included in any major health reform bill:
  1. Every American should be encouraged and incentivized to take personal responsibility for his or her health.

  2. Every American should have genuine access to quality, cost-effective care that best meets his or her individual needs.

  3. Every American should have health insurance coverage (private or public) that is affordable, accessible, and portable-no matter where he or she chooses to work or live.

  4. Health care providers should deliver the best possible care based upon best evidence or best practice.

  5. Every provider of care, from doctors and nurses to pharmacists and hospitals, should be interconnected with an electronic health record for every American.

  6. Payment to providers should be based on the quality of care delivered, not the number of transactions or services provided.

  7. Cost, quality, and performance information should be available and accessible to all consumers.

  8. Government should promote and encourage competitive, market-based solutions in the private sector.

  9. Government should offer effective, efficient, and sustainable public programs for those who need them.

  10. Government should aggressively invest in targeted clinical research, laying the foundations for future breakthroughs and cures.
You can read our entire plan here along with a checklist for you to grade any proposals your representatives put forth.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

You'll never guess which states have most jobless


Unemployment in March was 20 percent higher in so-called "blue states" won by Democratic candidate Barack Obama in last fall's presidential election than in "red states" won by Republican candidate John McCain, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Read more on WND.com.

(cartoons from Patriot Post)

"Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free day care, free college, free mortgages -- and, once you get a taste for that, it's hardly surprising you're not ready for gainful employment." --Mark Steyn

Monday, May 25, 2009

Memorial Day


Memorial Day is reserved by American Patriots as a day to honor the service and sacrifice of fallen men and women who donned our Armed Forces uniforms with honor.

"[L]et us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us re-consecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain." --Dwight Eisenhower

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." --Sir Winston Churchill

"No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave." --Calvin Coolidge

"Not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men." --Pericles

"I have no illusions about what little I can add now to the silent testimony of those who gave their lives willingly for their country. Words are even more feeble on this Memorial Day, for the sight before us is that of a strong and good nation that stands in silence and remembers those who were loved and who, in return, loved their countrymen enough to die for them. Yet, we must try to honor them -- not for their sakes alone, but for our own. And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice. Our first obligation to them and ourselves is plain enough: The United States and the freedom for which it stands, the freedom for which they died, must endure and prosper." --Ronald Reagan

In honor of all the military men and women who have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms, including life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Profiles of Valor: U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Brent Morel and Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor

A tribute our military, for fighting for our freedom. I thank them for their ultimate sacrifice of their lives and the sacrifices of that their family will endure with their absence.

I don't know these fine men, but I am thankful for what they have done for me and the millions of Americans to preserve our freedom. In honor of Memorial Day, I thought it fitting to give tribute to heroes who have given their lives for us.

United States Marine Corps Capt. Brent Morel of Martin, Tennessee, was a platoon commander with 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division during the first offensive in Fallujah as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On 7 April 2004, Morel's platoon encountered enemy fire from more than 50 insurgents. A rocket-propelled grenade crippled the lead vehicle in the convoy, and the platoon was besieged with mortar and machine gun fire. After ordering the last two vehicles to establish flanking positions for the convoy, Morel left his vehicle to lead an assault across an open field to maneuver into firing positions. His assault eliminated several enemy fighters. But seeing his fellow Marines pinned by enemy fire, he again left the safety of his position in order to counterattack. It was then that he issued his final order: "Cover me. We're assaulting through." Though he took out more enemy fighters, he fell mortally wounded. The Marines rallied and defeated the ambush, killing more than 30 terrorists.

When informed of his son's death, Mike Morel could only ask, "Was he in the front?" Yes, he was. He replied, "I always knew that's where he would be." For his bravery, Capt. Morel was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross. A second Navy Cross went to Sgt. Willie L. Copeland III, who fought alongside Morel that day.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq , giving his life to save his fellow Seals.

During Mike Monsoor's funeral in San Diego , as his coffin was being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery, SEAL's were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers route forming a column of two's, with the coffin moving up the center. As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL, having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it down embedding the Trident in the wooden coffin. The slaps were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from all the Tridents pinned to it.

This was a fitting send-off for a warrior hero.


I am proud of our military, these fine men and women of our military

will continue to serve and protect.

God Bless Our Troops

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Dick Cheney's speach

Dick Cheney speaks at the American Enterprise Institute about the policies implemented during the Bush years to deal with Terrorism after the 9/11 attacks.


Part 1 of 4


Part 2 of 4


Part 3 of 4


Part 4 of 4

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

More Reasons Why Pelosi Should Step Down....



Very detailed article explaining Pelosi's lies: excerpts by Karl Rove - click here to read entire article
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account. .....


Excerpts from a letter explaining more details, by Newt Gingrich here
The controversy swirling around Speaker Pelosi isn't political - she may think it is, other liberal Democrats may think it is, and the media may want it to appear that way. But this isn't about politics. It's about national security. At issue is whether Speaker Pelosi was informed, at a briefing by intelligence officers on September 4, 2002 when she was the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that the CIA had used and was using enhanced interrogation techniques - specifically waterboarding - on captured al Qaeda terrorists.

Prior to her now infamous press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi insisted that the CIA had not told her in 2002 that waterboarding and other enhanced techniques were being used. At last week's press conference she went beyond this position to assert that "the only mention of waterboarding at [the September 2002] briefing was that it was not being employed." In contrast, Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, wrote a memo last Friday to CIA employees in which he stated that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of [Al Qaeda terrorist] Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'" And so the question, prior to her rambling press conference, was one of memory: Did Speaker Pelosi remember correctly the briefing she received in 2002? If she had confined the controversy to her memory versus the CIA's, Speaker Pelosi may have saved herself. She would be guilty of irresponsibility and incompetence perhaps, but that would basically be it. Not good, but not disqualifying.

But Speaker Pelosi did not confine the question to the reliability of memory. Instead, she made the allegation last week that the CIA intentionally misled her - misled Congress - and not just once, but routinely. "They mislead us all the time," she said. She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress. And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds. And the question that remains is why? Why would Speaker Pelosi escalate the small skirmish she found herself in over the 2002 briefing into a full-scale war with the CIA? Perhaps it's because if America knew that Speaker Pelosi consented, fully informed and without complaint, to waterboarding back in 2002, it would reveal the current liberal bloodlust over interrogations for what it is: The Left's attempt to hunt down and purge its political opponents. ....
Another very detailed article explaining how Pelosi is sacrificing her credibility on the altar of moral vanity and rhetorical excess. read article here
For Pelosi’s account to be accurate, the CIA must have engaged in one of the most baroque and ineffectual conspiracies in the history of Washington. ..... The CIA must have convinced Porter Goss, the Republican congressman (and subsequent CIA director) who was present at the 2002 briefing, to lie and pronounce himself “slack-jawed” at Pelosi’s account. It must have forged the “contemporaneous records” CIA director Leon Panetta, an Obama nominee, has cited that show Pelosi was told of the waterboarding. ....

(cartoons from the Patriot Post)

Monday, May 18, 2009

Pelosi at War with the CIA


It's time for Pelosi to go...

She knew, she was told, she lied, and she got caught!!

Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying:



Pelosi said in a news conference that she was "misled" (aka lied to) by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.

Later, Pelosi gets flustered & can't remember her lie, nor keep her story straight:



"When — when — when my staff person — I'm sorry, the page is out of order — five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing — informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place." - Pelosi


Caught in the Lie:
The CIA last week contradicted Pelosi, saying she had been told about the use of methods such as waterboarding, or simulated drowning, in a September 2002 briefing.

The spy agency issued a chart saying Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Porter Goss, then the panel's chairman, were given "a description of the particular EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed."




Documents reveal Nancy Pelosi knew of CIA enhanced interrogation techniques:

Panetta, President Obama’s pick to run the clandestine agency, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,’” according to CIA records.”We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”




Here's more of the story:




Krauthammer: "Pelosi Is Now At War With The CIA; I Suspect They Will Destroy Her"



Well, I have to hope what Krauthammer says will happen, I hope the CIA destroys Pelosi. It is time for her to go.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Facts about Legalized Abortion

Here are some quotes from the work of the Guttmacher Institute (GI), whose pro-abortion connections and sympathies are well known, but whose data is still reliable. According to GI, "[B]lack women abort their children at five times the white rate and twice the Hispanic rate," Duin writes. Specifically that means, "11 abortions per 1,000 white women, 28 for every 1,000 Hispanic women and 50 for every 1,000 black women."

To borrow from the Marxists, it is no accident that Planned Parenthood plants so many of its "clinics" in urban areas peopled by blacks and Hispanics. But it is tragic that the first African-American president would be the best of buddies with PPFA, whose primary "growth market" is vulnerable black girls.



Undercover investigation reveals that viability and fetal age are underestimated to avoid compliance with Kansas law

WICHITA, Kansas, Jan. 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Operation Rescue has released the results of an undercover investigation it recently conducted at George R. Tiller's late-term abortion clinic, Women's Health Care Services (WHCS). The investigation involved a pregnant volunteer, known only by her first name, Shaye, who offered to enter the Tiller abortuary, pretending to be a mother seeking an abortion.

At the time when Shaye entered Tiller’s abortuary she was estimated to be at 25 weeks and 5 days gestation, calculating gestation from the first day of her last menstrual period. This would put her baby well beyond the 22 weeks when viability must be determined under Kansas law.

In a sworn statement Shaye said that a WHCS employee conducted her sonogram and determined that her baby was 24 weeks, 6 days gestation, past the threshold of viability. The Tiller employee then tore up those ultrasound photos and threw them into the trash. She took new measurements, telling Shaye her baby was only 23 weeks gestation.

Shaye then easily obtained an appointment for an abortion without having to see the second physician required by law for post-viability abortions.

In order to confirm the actual fetal age of Shaye's baby, she received two more sonograms on that same day, both of which indicated the baby was beyond 24 weeks gestation.

Shaye had made WHCS aware that both she and her baby were healthy and that the pregnancy was without complications. She did not receive the abortion only because she did not show up for the abortion appointment.

Operation Rescue says that its investigation confirms the testimony of District Attorney Phill Kline, who stated in court last week that evidence he obtained shows that Tiller has performed late-term abortions on healthy women with viable babies. Kline also told the court that he saw evidence that Planned Parenthood referred women in such situations to Tiller for illegal abortions.

"This evidence warrants further investigation by law enforcement authorities," said Newman. "This is convincing proof that, in spite of already facing 19 criminal charges, Tiller continues to flout the law to the danger of women and their babies."

Operation Rescue called on Attorney General Steve Six to launch a further investigation of Tiller, and renewed its call on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts for an emergency closure of WHCS and suspension of Tiller's medical license.

To find out more, see: http://www.operationrescue.org/illegal-fetal-ageviability-deception-scheme-uncovered-by-operation-rescue-at-tiller%e2%80%99s-abortion-clinic/

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

100 Days of Change

This is a powerful video that shows what Obama's 100 days of "Change" has done for families in America. It also shows what Obama stated pre-election and what he has actually done.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Pro-life ad to air during American Idol finale



This new pro-life video ad has been accepted for broadcast on the closing episode of American Idol. It was produced by CatholicVote.org as part of its series of "Imagine the Potential" ads, the new ad promotes adoption by highlighting famous people who were themselves adopted.

The ad is fabulous! You'll watch it more than once.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Judy Blume asks for donations to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest abortion business

I told my 10 yr old daughter about this story last week, and she said: "Well, I'm not going to ever read Judy Blume's books any more." She also asked me if we should throw away the copy of "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing," that we have at our home. What a sweet little girl so willing to stand for the truth and not support anyone who would seek to destroy human life. God has truly sent me a choice spirit. ...and maybe I should follow my daughter's advice and throw her book away, I certainly won't be buying any or encouraging my children to read Blume's books any more as I know her true colors now.

So here's the bit about Judy Blume which you may have already heard since it was for Mother's Day:

Famous children's author Judy Blume has added to herself to the devastating list of people who solicits donations for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business.

In a new massively ironical way to celebrate Mother's Day, Blume suggests sending a donation to the pro-abortion group to honor mothers.

Author Judy Blume, states on her webpage judyblume.com
"Say thanks this Mother's Day with a gift that honors her courage by making a donation to Planned Parenthood in her name. I guarantee you that she'll be pleased. I know I would be."....

"There is no organization that I know of that supports motherhood and all that it means more than Planned Parenthood. That's why I'm honoring moms everywhere with my gift to Planned Parenthood today." ....

"And right now — with more and more women seeking care from Planned Parenthood health centers — we need to do all we can to support them. By honoring a mother in your life, you'll be making a gift to millions of mothers and families who seek care from Planned Parenthood. That's a gift any mother will appreciate."
That makes no sense to me at all. How on earth does Planned Parenthood support motherhood?????? It is an organization that robs women of the role motherhood of bringing precious lives into this world by seeking and encouraging women to kill these babies, their children through abortion. Planned Parenthood dishonors motherhood and hurts women by not giving them all the facts and telling them it is a merely a "harmless procedure".

Contact Judy Blume with your complaints about her support for Planned Parenthood at Judy Blume, c/o Tashmoo Productions, 1841 Broadway, Suite 711A, New York, N.Y. 10023. You can also email Judy at JudyB@judyblume.com and leave a message on her public guestbook by going here.
I did!!

If you would really like to honor and support moms everywhere make a gift to organizations that actually honor and help mothers such as: Care Net and/or Heartbeat Int. These are organization that run networks of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They also jointly operate the 24 hour OptionLine, an outreach program that allows women facing crisis pregnancies to call for help at any time.

Here are the addresses for CareNet and Heartbeat:

CareNet
P.O Box 758530
Topeka, KS 66675-8530

Heartbeat Int.
665 E. Dublin-Granville Road, Suite 440
Columbus, OH 43229

Friday, May 8, 2009

Kathy Ireland Gives Powerful Defense of Right to Life

Here are some clips from fabulous interview with Kathy Ireland on Fox News.



In a recent appearance on Fox News' "Huckabee," Kathy Ireland gave an explanation of the right to life that host Mike Huckabee said was the most articulate that he had ever heard from any source

"From the moment of conception a new life comes into being, the DNA, the genetic blueprint is there, the sex is determined, the blood type is determined, the unique set of fingerprints is there," Ireland told Huckabee.

"According to the law of biogenesis, all life comes from preexisting life, and each species reproduces after its own kind, therefore human beings can only reproduce other human beings, so it doesn't start out as one species and suddenly become a human being somewhere along the way," she said.

Noting that she began with the "pro-choice" position, even while a Christian, Ireland says that she changed her mind after researching the topic using her husband's medical manuals.

However, Ireland said she didn't want to believe what she was seeing, so she called Planned Parenthood to get their response.

"And I picked up the phone, I called Planned Parenthood. 'Help me out here, give me your best arguments'. And the best arguments were, 'Well, it's just a clump of cells. If you get it early enough it doesn't even look like a baby.'"

However, noted Ireland, "We're clumps of cells, and that unborn human being does not look like a baby the same way a baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior, but that unborn human being looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development, and that human life continues to grow and change."

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Ya Gotta Love Newt!!!



Reacting to the questions posed during Wednesday's presidential news conference, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed disappointment with the White House press corps, telling FNC's Greta Van Sustere:

"I think the Washington White House press corps has taken such a pathetic dive with this President that they ought to be part of his PR firm. I mean it's embarrassing to watch. How many reporters have said to him, you know, "so why are you releasing these terrorists in the United States?" How many reporters have said to him, you know, "why are you so confused about whether or not you want to in fact go after and prosecute people who've never historically been prosecuted before?" Why are so few of them saying to him: "Gosh, doesn't it worry you to have $9 trillion in debt being projected under your administration?"

I mean, there is no tough, serious engagement. It's like watching a collection of, you know -- if you didn't know better, you'd think that he was practicing with his own public affairs people for the future press conference. These look like practice sessions. They don't look like real press conferences."

info from: MRC