Today Obama made his announcement of whom he chose for the vacant seat in the Supreme Court. Am I happy about the decision... not so much… The reason, I fear she will try to make policy from the bench, rather than uphold the Constitution that she will take an oath to defend and enforce.
This is a woman who believes the 2nd amendment is not meant to be applied to individual... that is right, Judge Sotomayor is one of only three federal appeals judges to say that the Second Amendment does not stop your city or state from banning all guns, even in your home. In other words, Judge Sotomayor says that a ban like the D.C. gun ban struck down by the Supreme Court last year is constitutional if enacted by a city or state.
What?!!!!
That means all this time, we have all got it wrong. You don’t have any rights, the government grants them to you and bends the Constitution any way they see fit to conform to what they want done at the time.
Sotomayor has also been recorded saying, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made."
This is the most frightening statement. The Courts are supposed to be free of politics, free of policymaking, free of bias. They are to be the only branch in the Government that is non-bias, politically free and blind as lady justice is in the statue outside the Supreme Court. Their one and only job is to uphold the Constitution and the laws on the books. It is not their job to make law, but to enforce it. Big difference!!!!
It seems to be a joke, all the lies we are being told by the current administration. Where is the bipartisanship, where is the motivation for truth?? Why can't this President just do what he says. But then again he did say he wanted to find a judge that was "empathetic". That is actually the last thing a judge should be. A Judge should actually be the opposite. They should not let any emotion get into the way of their decisions. But who am I to tell a lawyer and current President what the Courts should do, he should know…right?
I have to say, I am really beginning to question my country. I love the America my Founding Fathers created, I loved the America I read about in history books, I love the documents that set this country apart from all of countries in history. But this country I am living in, this is not my America. It has slowly but surely, taken away my liberties and freedoms and replaced them with shackles; shackles my brother's and sisters have fought against for over 200 years. How can we do this to all the men and women who have died for this country's freedoms; how can we just make a decision that wipes out their efforts.
I am having a hard time with the outlook of my country's future, I pray for patience to see your Path Lord. Please show all your children the way.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
My Take on Obama's pick for Supreme Court Justice...
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I'm starting to notice a pattern....
I have had a couple encounters lately with Liberals. We begin to have a discussion, or what I think will be a discussion, and then it always turns into me being yelled at, by the Liberal, and being called crazy, racist, closed-minded, etc., etc.
I think what I am starting to learn as I investigate my country’s situation, as I educate myself on my country’s history, I am beginning to see the solutions for our country. I have learned that the other side is not doing that. When I begin to start throwing out facts, statistics, events, history, the tone of the discussion is raised to anger and then to all out yelling at me for being insane for thinking the way I do… I’m sorry… I’m insane for laying out facts and history and statistics for why I think the way that I do, yet you are sane for having nothing to back up you views and calling me crazy??? Wow, I guess if that is what sane is, call me nucking futs!
When someone asks me what I stand for, what I believe and I start to talk about the principles of freedom, God's Natural Law, give quotes from the Founding Fathers, the person on the other side of that discussion has no clue what I am talking about.
I start to talk about Abraham Lincoln and they ask me, “Well what does that have to do with anything?” Are you kidding me, it has everything to do with what we are facing today. The values he instilled in this country in his Presidency, if followed and applied today, we would never be in the mess we are in now. He shared wisdom to elected officials to vote the will of the people, to not give people everything they have, so they can strive to earn what they have and in turn empowering them to be more than they would have ever been by just handing them what the need.
When I speak of the Industrial Revolution, they have no clue what that is. That it was the allowance of free enterprise to take hold of this country and let people to invent many luxuries that we enjoy today and people, who came from nothing, could become anything they worked hard to do. A time when hard work and and entrepreneurial spirit was all you needed to be successful in your endeavors. Where it was almost impossible if you had the drive, the wit and the strong will not to be successful.
If I ask a Liberal with an opposing view, what Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness means to them, they tell me I am off the subject. When that statement alone could solve all of our problems. They don't even know what it means. Why, because they have never asked themselves. They have never dug deep and looked into what the Founding Fathers wanted for this Country and I know if they did, they would want the same thing too.
So I find myself in a position to pray for them. Just as Jesus asked God to "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" I wonder if that is where we are in today’s society. Do they not know what they do?? But how can they not. How can they not check the facts on a story given on the news? How can they not look into the background of a study or poll being given to us by the media?
Don't get me wrong, I watch Fox News, but I don’t just take what they say for granted. I research what they tell me and sometimes find out what they said was incorrect or find more information to shed more light on the issue, therefore disagreeing with the reporter who gave the story.
But people don’t do that anymore. Let me give you the best advice you will ever hear about the media. I have a BS is Journalism; I know first hand what goes on in that business. And that is exactly what it is, a business. And what is any business out to do, make money. They will tell you anything they can to get papers sold, viewer tallies up and ads seen by millions. They are not regulated (which if they were that would be freighting if the government regulated them) and they do not have your best interest at heart.
They are no longer the watch dog of this country and freedom of the press has an entirely different meaning today then what it did when the Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution.
DO NOT TRUST THE MEDIA, Hell, don’t trust me. Look into the information I give you. Question those officials who are around you. If someone says they are going to do something, do not take them on their word, check to see if they did it. Does it take time, of course it does. Quite frankly, it takes a lot of time. But it is worth it.
I always tell my friends and family, the way I make my decisions is I look at them as though I am standing in front of God on my judgment day. I don’t want to have to answer for being lead blindly. I want to know what I am facing and I believe this country was founded under God and I believe it can be there again, but not until we all come together and educate ourselves.
Because of you don't know what is good, how will you know what is bad when it comes your way?? God Bless this Country, please and save us from ourselves!!!!
Just want to say my peace about Pelosi and then drop it!
Ok, so The Pelosi confusion was on the front page last week, this week I'd say I find it on page 6 or 7...tomorrow maybe back page, by the end of the week, we will have forgotten all about it. I mean it's not a big deal...right?
WRONG!!!!!! The first and foremost point I want to make is, whoever is lying, Pelosi or the CIA, we have a major National Security problem on our hands. If the CIA is lying, that means they are misleading Congress to make decisions and laws based off of faulty information, just to get what they want. These are the people who protect our National Safety and our everyday lives; who can also tap our phone lines and watch our every move if they so choose. So if they are lying we have a huge problem on our hands people of a big brother type situation.
Or... Is Pelosi lying?? If she is lying, then the person who is 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency will say anything to get herself out of trouble. And if she handles herself in this situation by lying, then guess the way she will always handle herself in this kind of situation or other situations that carry a bigger consequences. If she were to become President, then was faced with a situation where she was questioned about a decision or string of decisions she had made while in power (because we all know she has never done that to a President before..... ) then lies, we have a scary person in high power position.
So now that we have the consequences of each side being liars all worked out, let's look at the chain of events that will lead us to why I think I know who is lying.
It is actually quite simple. If a politician smells blood in the water, usually there is a feeding frenzy. Think of all the investigations on Bush's administration while he was in office and out of office?? They attack him and his administration without mercy for any and all rumors, here-says and gut feelings.
So would it not stand to figure, that if they had proof of the CIA is or had "mislead" Congress, they would call for an all out investigation of the CIA and their "communication practices" with the Congress. I mean, if I were in Congress I would want that problem solved as fast as possible. Yet there has been no call, by any Congressman or Representative to investigate the CIA.
But there has been a call by Republican House members to investigate Pelosi and it was defeated in a 252-172 vote today.
Why? Why would you defeat the a measure to investigate a woman, you claim is a fantastic leader. If she is correct, the only thing the investigation would turn up is facts to support that, right??
I have to say, I am the first to say you can't just start opening up investigations on elected officials whenever you just feel like it. I think that would not only be a waste of time, but also a waste of tax payers dollars. However, when an elected official makes a statement that suggests the CIA lies to Congress all the time... I think that is good cause to look into the issue, don't you?
Let's play the politician in this matter... I will settle for an investigation on the issue period. Not one that just looks into her involvement, but one that looks into both sides. But that would be just good ol' common sense and we can't have that going on in Washington now can we.
My opinion on the actions of both sides and what my gut tells me... She is lying. If roles were reversed, I would put money on the fact that Pelosi would be grand standing that an investigation must be done! I would see it splashed all over the liberal media as if a small town in OK was bombed. But, for some reason it is being very quickly swept under the rug.
What I want to know is why can't one person just have some integrity to just tell the truth. People, we have got to weed these people out ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!! I want a politician that sees an injustice on either side and calls for an investigation regardless of the party, not an underground fraternity that protects their own. If my Father did something wrong, I would call him out on it. I would beg him to tell the truth and if he didn’t, I would be first in line to investigate. People, we have got to get back to "My word is my bond". Without it we are nothing.
Put the pressure on your elected officials to weed these people out and push them to act this way, otherwise we are doomed!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Glenn Beck on the View... Disaster
This is exactly what is wrong with this country. You have someone like Glenn Beck on your show, you decide you don’t like his views on politics, life, whatever; You then try and find a way to make him look bad on your show to discredit him and his views.
You have an encounter with him on the Am track train... you decide to use that against him... How you may ask, well, he said on his radio show that Barabra WaWa came up to him to say hello??? What!? That is a flat out lie, that Glenn came up to Barbara and Whoopie and said hello? Glenn said hello to them! This is an outrage, you are a flat out liar and deserve to have everything you have ever said discredited, because you lied about who said hello first.
Are you kidding me??? Barbara talks to Glenn and asks him if he ever checks his facts out???
What facts would that be, that someone from Amtrak told him the seats where reserved and he has witnesses to such, but he should have called the Amtrak officials to find out if they were in fact saved for them???
Let me ask you this Barbara, did you call the witnesses Glenn had with him to find out their side of the story before you accused him of lying?? Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it, to call people based on your own personal account of what happened.
Poor Glenn I think he is sitting there in shock that he can’t believe they are taking the entire segment to talk about this... not the economy, not foreign affairs, not abortion, but who said hello first???
Just proves why we can’t come together in this country we aren't on the same page, in fact we are not even on the same book or subject.
That is progressives defense mechanism, they try to talk about insignificant things to distract you from the hard hitting topics, because they know, if they try to talk serious issues with you, they will be annihilated in the debate.
They will have no chance. And they wonder why we don't want to get into debates with them; act like an adult and maybe we can talk. Maybe we should just put them into time out, do you think that would work :-)!?
(See Video below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB3cC87uPmw
Why Speaker Pelosi Should Step Down - by Newt Gingrich
Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe
Friday, May 15, 2009
Washington Post Article about Pelosi's knowledge of water boarding from Dec. 2007
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
By Joby Warrick and Dan EggenWashington Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
Congressional officials say the groups' ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited them from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of their own staffs. And while various officials have described the briefings as detailed and graphic, it is unclear precisely what members were told about waterboarding and how it is conducted. Several officials familiar with the briefings also recalled that the meetings were marked by an atmosphere of deep concern about the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack.
"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "
Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general.
GOP lawmakers and Bush administration officials have previously said members of Congress were well informed and were supportive of the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques. But the details of who in Congress knew what, and when, about waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that is the most extreme and widely condemned interrogation technique -- have not previously been disclosed.
U.S. law requires the CIA to inform Congress of covert activities and allows the briefings to be limited in certain highly sensitive cases to a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.
That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision. Critics have since said the administration's motivation was at least partly to hide from view an embarrassing practice that the CIA considered vital but outsiders would almost certainly condemn as abhorrent.
Information about the use of waterboarding nonetheless began to seep out after a furious internal debate among military lawyers and policymakers over its legality and morality. Once it became public, other members of Congress -- beyond the four that interacted regularly with the CIA on its most sensitive activities -- insisted on being briefed on it, and the circle of those in the know widened.
In September 2006, the CIA for the first time briefed all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, producing some heated exchanges with CIA officials, including Director Michael V. Hayden. The CIA director said during a television interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of "all aspects of the detention and interrogation program." He said the "rich dialogue" with Congress led him to propose a new interrogation program that President Bush formally announced over the summer.
"I can't describe that program to you," Hayden said. "But I would suggest to you that it would be wrong to assume that the program of the past is necessarily the program moving forward into the future."
Waterboarding Used on at Least 3
Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.
In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject's mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning.
U.S. officials knowledgeable about the CIA's use of the technique say it was used on three individuals -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qaeda member and Osama bin Laden associate captured in Pakistan in March 2002; and a third detainee who has not been publicly identified.
Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings.
The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected.
Lawmakers have varied recollections about the topics covered in the briefings.
Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.
Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. 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.
Harman, who replaced Pelosi as the committee's top Democrat in January 2003, disclosed Friday that she filed a classified letter to the CIA in February of that year as an official protest about the interrogation program. Harman said she had been prevented from publicly discussing the letter or the CIA's program because of strict rules of secrecy.
"When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."
Roberts declined to comment on his participation in the briefings. Rockefeller also declined to talk about the briefings, but the West Virginia Democrat's public statements show him leading the push in 2005 for expanded congressional oversight and an investigation of CIA interrogation practices. "I proposed without success, both in committee and on the Senate floor, that the committee undertake an investigation of the CIA's detention and interrogation activities," Rockefeller said in a statement Friday.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly.
In May 2007, four months after Democrats regained control of Congress and well after the CIA had forsworn further waterboarding, four senators submitted written objections to the CIA's use of that tactic and other, still unspecified "enhanced" techniques in two classified letters to Hayden last spring, shortly after receiving a classified hearing on the topic. One letter was sent on May 1 by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). A similar letter was sent May 10 by a bipartisan group of three senators: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
In a rare public statement last month that broached the subject of his classified objections, Feingold complained about administration claims of congressional support, saying that it was "not the case" that lawmakers briefed on the CIA's program "have approved it or consented to it."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism - by George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller
So I have to ask myself, why this sudden view of optimism? Was it not these same officials and media that told me 3 months ago that if we didn't pass this stimulus plan that this country would go into ruin? Are you telling me Obama has done the unthinkable and has turned this economy around in a matter of months, because of his quick thinking on how to "save" us from the previous administration’s mistakes?
I have learned that there is always a deeper meaning with politicians these days. I choose to not just look at the surface, I choose to not just scratch the surface, I choose to dig deep into the core of anything I hear from today's politicians and media, regardless if they are MSNBC or Fox News. Usually you find an entire web of lies and cover-up that would make your head spin! I have trouble keeping a surprise party away from my boyfriend, never mind the thousands of lies these people try to hold up everyday…whew, must be exhausting.
What I found out was that Obama has given the book "Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism" by George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller to his administration to read and implement in the U.S. today.
By the title and cover it doesn't seem like it is anything to be worried about, but you start to dig into what this book goes into, it boggles the mind and scares me.
It basically teaches that through control of people's "Animal Spirits" or subconscious spending habits and emotions you can essentially control the economy. People buy out of habit, they buy from emotion, they buy because something looks fun, and they buy because they can. There are many reasons they list, but the idea is to control that subconscious and you can control the economy...control the economy, you can control the people.
The Obama administration also invited top executives from advertising and marketing firms to the White House to have “meetings”. Why you may ask, they know we are not accepting of their policies (although you wouldn't think that by what you hear in the media, another tactic of Animal Spirits - make them feel they are the minority in their thinking, because the Animal Spirit always wants to be a part of the majority). They are going to try and use marketing techniques with the concepts from "Animal Spirits" to get you to do what they want you to do...
I don't know about you, but that is scary stuff!!! This is in line with mind control and deception. They think so little of us not to make up our own minds when presented with the facts, but choose to deceive us and use manipulation techniques to get us to do what they want us to do. I am beginning to understand the scope and depth of the corruption that is trying to control this country.
Please tell your friends and family, we have got to fight this!!! We have to educate ourselves on the Founding Father's visions for this country. They were dead-on when they created this Country and its Constitution. If we can fight to get back to their ideal for this country we can save it, but don’t believe a word this administration says, do your own research, form your own opinion and bottom line, follow your gut. I have a feeling everyone has an uneasy feeling and it isn't because we are in a recession, it's because we all know what is happening is wrong. We just need to help people to see it!
Monday, May 11, 2009
How Specter's Defection Actually Helps the GOP Fight Liberal Judges:
From Human Events (www.humanevents.com) : In light of liberal Supreme Court Justice David Souter's pending retirement, careful insider analysis of Senator Arlen Specter's defection from Republican to Democrat reveals a strange irony: Although he could give the Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority, his defection actually strengthens the "rule of quorum" power and purity of Republican opposition within the Senate Judiciary Committee, who are now more united than ever in their opposition to liberal judges. The prime example is President Obama's nomination of the ANTI-JESUS, ANTI-LIFE Judge David Hamilton, the same bad judge who issued controversial rulings banning public prayers offered "in Jesus name," and hastening the abortion of unborn children. Republicans are following traditional "quorum rules" which can prevent Judge David Hamilton from getting any committee vote. If this continues, we'll win, and this anti-Jesus, anti-Life Judge will never be promoted to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Quorum rules?
Yes! The Senate Judiciary Committee procedural rules state: "Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business... If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority." On April 29th, only one minority Member attended the Hamilton hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose tough questioning opposed Hamilton, so no vote was permissible.
When Specter had ruled Judiciary as GOP minority ranking member, he could likely be counted on by the Obama administration as "one soft vote" to promote liberal judges. But now since Specter is no longer Republican, he cannot help Obama. And in breaking news this week, solid conservative Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has assumed Specter's place of leadership as minority ranking Member, and all other Judiciary Republicans Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, Coburn, can generally be counted upon (with the possible exception of gang-of-14 member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, 202-224-5972), to stand firm against abortion and religious censorship. Now Sen. Sessions says he agrees with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), that we should oppose and filibuster Hamilton's nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that reversed his liberal, activist, aggressive decisions for years. Only by re-writing the quorum rules, and overriding Senate tradition, can Democrats claim absolute power.
READ THE FACTS: The Judicial Confirmation Network quickly opposed Hamilton's nomination, stating that "President Obama's first nominee to the federal appeals courts -- specifically the appeals court based in Chicago -- is an ultra-liberal named David Hamilton who is a former fundraiser for ACORN and former leader of the Indiana chapter of the ACLU. He was nominated to the district court bench by President Clinton even though he had no judicial experience and was rated as 'not qualified' by the American Bar Association."
Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others." In other words, Judge Hamilton ruled the words "Jesus" or "Christ" or "Savior" are illegal words, prohibited for public speech, banned by the First Amendment, which somehow prohibits freedom of religious expression, and makes Christian prayers ILLEGAL in a public forum. (What crazy version of the First Amendment is he reading?) Thank God, we took action in 2007 and provided legal arguments to the Indiana Attorney General who appealed to the 7th Circuit Court and WE WON a 2-1 decision overruling Hamilton, restoring the right to pray "in Jesus name" in Indiana. But if Hamilton is promoted to the same court that overruled him, that good reversal could be in jeopardy.--end story
This is amazing people, we are starting to play the game, but play it fairly!! Encourage those who have the power to make this "not" happen. We have to send them our prayers and support to keep their battery charged for what is coming. You know that they are going to hit some serious opposition, but we need to constantly remind them they are doing the right thing!!!
Democrats not expected to allow vote on the D.C. recognition of same-sex marriage Move would make homosexual marriage bill law without members of Cong
May 11, 2009
Dear Jennifer,
The District of Columbia Council has voted 12-1 to recognize homosexual "marriages" from states where homosexual marriage is now legal - Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and Connecticut.
The bill now goes to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate for their approval. If approved by both, it will then go to the president for his signature. If Congress does not act on the bill by June 6, it automatically becomes law.
It appears that Democrats will not allow a vote on the bill. By doing this, they will keep their members from having to go on record as being for or against recognition of homosexual marriage. All Democratic members of Congress can then go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they would have voted against the bill if they had been allowed to vote.
Take Action - Time is Short
Take Action!
1. Send an E-mail your representative and two senators today and tell them you want a recorded vote on the D.C. homosexual marriage bill. Tell them if no vote is allowed, then it is clear the Democratic Party is promoting homosexual marriage despite President Obama's public announcement that he is opposed to homosexual marriage.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Monday, May 4, 2009
Nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of HHS
Tragically, some of those senators have pro-life records.
As Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius has worked to oppose: parental notification before a minor daughter can have a surgical abortion, waiting periods before having an abortion, and informed consent. She has vetoed pro-life legislation that would have afforded women basic health care protections in abortion facilities, as well as one requiring specific medical reasons for a late-term abortion. Just before becoming Secretary of HHS, she vetoed a bill that would have required that abortionists provide statistical information to the state when doing late-term abortions.
Kathleen Sebelius has strong ties to the notorious late-term abortionist in Wichita, KS, George Tiller (also known as “Tiller the Killer”). Women from throughout the nation come to him for late-term abortions. He has faced multiple federal charges for doing illegal late-term abortions.
Ms. Sebelius’ confirmation hearings revealed that she underpaid her taxes by thousands of dollars. She also greatly under-reported the campaign contributions given to her by George Tiller. It was three times more than she reported under oath. She also failed to report that George Tiller had personally given $200,000 to a political action committee to elect her. Governor Sebelius even held a secret party at the governor’s mansion in honor of this late-term abortionist.
Kathleen Sebelius is not just pro-abortion, she’s a pro-abortion activist, with a special advocacy for late-term abortion.
Here’s a link to how each senator voted on the confirmation of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of HHS: http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifeissues.org%252Fbreakingnews%252F2009%252FSebelius_Votes.htm. I’ve highlighted in red the pro-life senators who voted to support her nomination. Click on their names and it will provide a link to contact information (email, phone, address) so you can express your grave disappointment in their vote. They must be held accountable for supporting such a radically pro-abortion nominee.
Unless these senators hear from you, they’ll be more inclined to cast additional votes against unborn babies. Please contact them today.
Sincerely for the babies,
