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

May 20, 2009 Vol. 4, No. 20

The case against Nancy Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House is as simple as it is devastating: The person who is No. 2 in line to be commander in chief can't have contempt for the men and women who protect our nation.

America can't afford it.

To test how much damage Speaker Pelosi has done to the defense of our nation, ask yourself this: If you were a young man or woman just starting out today, would you put on a uniform or become an intelligence officer to defend America, knowing that tomorrow a politician like Nancy Pelosi could decide you were a criminal?

Would you?

This Isn't About Politics.

It's About National SecurityThe 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.

From a Question of Memory to a Question of Criminality

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.

Pelosi on the CIA:

"They Mislead Us All The Time"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.

Why Did Pelosi Escalate the Controversy into a Full Scale War With the CIA?

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.

Remember what America was like in September, 2002, less than a year after 9/11.America was terrified.

As I said on ABC Radio last week, our entire defense, intelligence and justice establishment expected that there would be additional al Qaeda attacks, we just didn't know where and we didn't know when.

If Pelosi Consented to Waterboarding in 2002, the Bush Policy Is Vindicated

If Nancy Pelosi believed that waterboarding was justified in 2002 - just like Porter Goss, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Tenet - then a policy of selectively using enhanced interrogation techniques in carefully circumscribed ways in order to prevent future attacks - in other words, the Bush Administration policy - is vindicated.

But rather than admit that President Bush, when faced with an array of difficult choices, made the hard choice that kept the nation safe, Nancy Pelosi has instead retreated into the cheap sanctity of ignorance. She didn't know, so she claims. That's why she didn't do anything about it.

But President Bush did know. It was his job to know, and he made the tough choices needed to save American lives.

It was Nancy Pelosi's job to know too. But to avoid culpability for the choices she supported, she's now telling us she didn't know. And she's calling the intelligence officials who say otherwise liars and criminals.

Shame on her.

Speaker Pelosi Has Made America Less Safe

Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety.

She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them.

And every day they spend worrying about being politically persecuted is a day we are made more vulnerable to a nuclear attack on one of our cities, a biological attack on one of our subways, or a bomb going off in one of our malls.

America is losing ground because of Nancy Pelosi's contempt for those who defend her. Democrats owe it to their country and our national security to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Link to article: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31940

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."

Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism - by George A. Akerlof & Robert J. Shiller

Have any of you questioned why all of a sudden there is all this talk from Government Officials, media and the like claiming we are starting to "get out" of this recession??? As much as I would like to think that is true, when I hear that, I become that pesky person that wants evidence of such. Has the unemployment rate gone down... no it has only slowed? Has the Fed stopped printing money... no. Has the deficit gone down in the last 2 weeks... no. I could go on and on, listing all those things that have NOT changed.

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!

Buy the book from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Spirits-Psychology-Economy-Capitalism/dp/0691142335

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

Letter I received from American Family Assoc.--

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.

2. After you have sent your e-mail, make a phone call to your representative and senators to tell them that you want a recorded vote. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

3. Please forward this to all your friends and family!

Time is short so please act today!

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,

Donald E. Wildmon,

Founder and Chairman

American Family Association

This is amazing!!! I thought Obama was against Homosexual marriage, yet he would sign it into law!! This is just another case of lies and deception. When will we all wake up and see what is happening!! We have got to make a stand. Call your Senators now and make it crystal clear this is wrong and not what was promised. We have to stop this now before this slippery slope is unstoppable!!!

Nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of HHS

Below, please read an e-mail I received from Life Issues Institute. It is the best way to sum up the Nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of HHS. This is a true slap in the face to Pro-Life advocates. We have to show our disapproval for their decisions, especially those Senators that claim to be Pro-Life who voted to confirm her nomination. I went to link at the end of the article below and I took the time to write all of the Senators who claim to be Pro-Life but voted to confirm Kathleen Sebelius. This is what I wrote:

I just wanted to write you, even though you are not the Senator of my State, to let you know that as a fellow Pro-Life advocate I am disappointed in your approval of confirming the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of HHS. I would have to ask you to pray about your decision. These children do not have voices and we are to stand up for them, as they are children of God. I pray that you see the consequences of your decision and ask that in the future, please stand by your convictions and stand up for life! Read the e-mail below and I encourage all of you to do the same!---

Seldom has the Senate confirmed such an appalling presidential nominee as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kathleen Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas, was recently sworn in. She has such a sordid history with late-term abortion, it truly challenges reason why America’s senators would vote to confirm her nomination—giving her broad authority over the area of our nation’s health care.

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,

Bradley Mattes

Executive Director

Life Issues Institute

http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.lifeissues.org

Fox News says: First 100 Days: Social Policy Takes a Left Turn Under Obama

Link to article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/26/pub-obamas-social-policy-shift/

I have to say, I am actually shocked by this story. It is from a conservative news agency, and I am shocked that we are not showing any resistance to the current State of affairs of this country. It makes we wonder is the writer blind?? Are they living in the same America I am living in??

What baffles me, is we just witnessed almost half a million people protesting on one day against the current policies being enacted. I hear my friends who knew nothing about our Nations history learning about the Founding Fathers and their visions for this Country. I hear people using the words like "Principles" & "Values", it makes me proud that people are learning about our Nation's history. However, I forgot about the people who voted for our current President. Those who do what the media tells them. Think what the Politicians tell them to think.

I want to believe this is just a way for those who are trying to change this country for the worse, to use this as a tool to make us think we are alone in our beliefs. But I think they are wrong and I think they are under estimating us as Americans. What do you think?

Support Sarah Pac!

I just found this web site for Sarah Palin. I don't know about all of you, but she inpires me and I believe she could help this country get back to is moral basics! Let's help Sarah make a run in 2012!

here is her web site: http://www.sarahpac.com/

Gotta love them Tea Parties in good ol' Cave Creek

Tear..sigh... so my home town is having a Tea Party! It's even on a Sunday! This is cracking me up!! Who knew the little town of Cave Creek had enough Conservatives in it to have a ralley. Makes me pound my fist at my heart and say, good ol' Cave Creek always comes through!!! I just had to share in the Spirit of being light-minded on a Friday, the fever is spreading!!!

They even have a website!!!: http://cavecreekteaparty.com/