September 2008 Archives

The policies of socialists are often justified through emotive appeals that invoke the needs of the poor and the greater good of society. The consequences are inevitably cruel, destroying lives by consuming the product of one's labor and enslaving the "beneficiaries" of the programs.

The Community Reinvestment Act is one such piece of legislation that institutionalized economic destruction by enabling those without sufficient credit or income to buy property they could not afford. Congress required banks to lower their credit standards and give out loans to those who didn't qualify. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."

We now know the laundry list of Democratic leaders who pushed this tragic program into law and defended its merits despite calls for scrutiny and regulation. Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Franklin Raines, John Conyers, Jim Johnson and others.

Barack Obama played his role by representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (Acorn), one of America's most militant left-wing "community activist groups,"

Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

[snip]

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

This seems a bit generous to me: Democrat Party Risks Becoming the "Party of Death"

And yet, Keith Girard writes (WSJ):

The nation's top economic leaders repeatedly raised the specter of a Main Street meltdown on Capitol Hill this week to justify a $700 billion bailout for major financial institutions. But the message is pretty much ringing hollow on Main Street, where rising prices and the economic slowdown outweigh credit concerns, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

The NFIB's chief economist, William C. Dunkelberg, said in an exclusive interview this week that the organization's monthly survey of economic conditions has yet to detect anything that would indicate severe credit stress among its members. Only 2 percent of those polled said credit was their No. 1 problem in its August survey. Credit was mentioned as a problem by 10 percent of those surveyed, which is up from about 3 percent in 2002. But the change is normal. "Is credit tighter? Yes," Dunkelberg says. "But it's always tighter at the end of the quarter."

In comparison, during the 1981-82 recession, 23 percent of small business owners said credit was their No. 1 problem. Even during the stock market crash of 1987, which saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunge 22 percent in one day, credit was never a major issue for small companies, he said. "We looked at our data, and the economy kept going until 1991. It is true that AIG stock is down and bank stocks in people's portfolios may be down, but looking at the fundamentals of the economy, it's not even as bad as 2001," he says.

"Bank of America may not be making car loans because it's short on capital, but I can't imagine why it would be difficult to get a car loan, unless the borrower is not a good credit risk," says the NFIB economist. "If you are looking to borrow 100 percent of the retail value of the car, no, but car loans are available."

Suffering as a result of our past policies is inevitable:

American's are going to suffer. The poor will be hardest hit. As conservative pro-life Christians, we've often been criticized for not carrying about kids after they are born, this despite our extensive charitable work and outreach. I'd like to point out that big government, the kind with a program to solve every societal ill and help every depressed individual, is responsible for the current financial crisis.

The tender mercies of the monstrous government that brought us the Community Reinvestment Act has jeopardized the future of the very people they said were being helped.

The audacity is that our "leaders" have not learned their lesson. Democrats are attempting to skim their 20% of profits first and foremost off the top of any enormous financial-bailout benefit. It's like reading a non-fiction version of Atlas Shrugged.

There are other ways out of this current crisis that do not involve socialistic strategies built upon years of government intervention and motivated by public fear.  Andy McCarthy quotes a friend with insight (HT: Michelle Malkin):

We all get it.  It's bad out there.  We're way over-leveraged.  Consumer debt is out of this world.  Credit is tight at best.  And banks are insolvent.  We need to take action.  But darn it, we should take the right kind of action.

(...) The Paulson-Democrat Wall Street Bailout will arguably make things WORSE, not better

(...) We may blow the best shot the federal government has to use taxpayer money wisely to "work out" of the current financial situation - getting it wrong will CREATE problems and HARM confidence, because fundamentally underpinning this situation is the assumption that the government can prevent a meltdown.  If the plan fails, this opportunity may well disappear.

(...) This plan would have government socialize losses - and breaks the tie between risk and reward/failure.  Certain companies need to get wiped out - and doing so will be BETTER for remaining investments.

When government steps in preemptively and starts arbitrarily buying up assets, the expectation is that it will do so again and again  

And as for alternatives:

 

-         how about reinforcing FDIC to give people confidence in their savings?  Maybe more support for money markets? 

-         How about cutting corporate taxes or cap gains taxes? 

-         How about buying up (or financing the purchase of) the AAA securities that currently are having trouble moving but are not "toxic," in order to increase liquidity and help with possible insolvency for healthier institutions rather than the old line investment banks? 

-         How about doing something about the silliness of the $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap market (e.g. the margin requirements, etc...)? 

-           How about immediately changing mark-to-market rules?

-      And - heaven forbid - how about belt-tightening in Washington?  Don't hold your breath - but imagine what a signal that would send - a freeze in discretionary spending, a moratorium on earmarks and a real plan to educate America about entitlements and talk about the need to get our fiscal house in order.

Neither Republican socialism nor Democratic corporatism is the answer to the current financial "crisis." The conventional mantra of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates is that this problem was caused by a financial industry that was insufficiently regulated. In fact, the crisis was caused by previous government intervention and bailouts -- for example, FDR's bank holiday and the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the New Deal and Bush's father's massive bail out of the Savings and Loan banks during the late 1980s and early 1990s. If the financial sector is regarded as too important to have difficulties or if particular financial institutions are regarded as "too big to fail," they will engage in reckless practices that will end in "crisis," thus leading to demands for yet more government action to fix the problems that prior government intervention caused.

This downward spiral must be broken. Financial institutions must be allowed to fail, and the market must be allowed to return to equilibrium. Such failures might very well induce a recession, but as Herbert Hoover discovered, throwing more credit at a market with excess credit only worsens the inevitable economic downturn. Let's just hope the ill effects of this massive financial bail out don't get that bad.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Have you ever been in a small group setting where someone mentions their pro-choice opinion on the abortion issue? Then once you or a fellow pro-lifer starts to question their views, they say that they don't want to discuss it or some other response to squelch the debate. This occurs from small group settings to large pro-life exhibits. For example, recently 18 pro-lifers were arrested in Maryland for just standing on the side of the road holding pro-life signs. They were basically arrested for trumped-up charges and later released.

It's very ironic that often it is difficult to have a pro-life display exhibited on college campuses. College professors and administrators preach free speech, tolerance, and diversity but only when it pertains to something they agree with. They usually have very little tolerance for a pro-life group displaying its freedom of speech rights, even though the group is following all the rules for displays set by the administration. The response is sometimes similar from the students who have been indoctrinated by those same professors and administrators. This is a typical reaction of many liberals in our society. If someone questions them, then that person is to be dismissed and their opinions not worthy of respect. With many social topics, including abortion, the liberal side does not want to deal with the logic of the issue. If you oppose their view, you should not be heard; not because of specifics of the claim you made, but only because you oppose their view.

How does a pro-lifer respond to being stifled in such a manner? Verbally fight back with a calm demeanor, and put them on the spot. Ask them if they believe in free speech? In tolerance? In diversity? Of course, they should respond yes to all. Then you agree and state that you believe in free speech for all, tolerance for differing points of view, and a desire to listen to a diversity of opinions. Then offer them the chance to state their opinion as long as you can state yours.

Thus far, local 40 Days for Life coordinators have reported 48 babies saved from abortion! And reports are still coming in. It's awesome!

Karen in Oklahoma City tells of a young woman who approached sidewalk counselors outside the clinic. "They could tell she was conflicted and open to their words," she said.

This young woman was the victim of sexual assault. "She was afraid of carrying a child she did not really want," said Karen, "but she was also afraid that she might fall in love with her baby if she chose life."

After the counselors described the free resources available, she asked if she could choose an adoptive family for her baby. The answer was a resounding yes. "The counselors hugged her and thanked her for choosing life for her unborn child," Karen said. "She left smiling and happy. Praise God!"

Michele in Colorado Springs reports a car drove up to the clinic and two young women got out -- a woman scheduled for an abortion and her friend. The friend called out to the people praying outside the clinic, "I'm with you! Pray for her!" And of course they did just that. The two women went inside the clinic, then came back out and talked. They went back in again, and came back out and talked again.

This time, someone shared a scripture verse with them -- Isaiah 49:15: "Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you." After reading this together, the two young women went home. The baby was saved!

Carol in Toms River, New Jersey was praying with a small group outside the clinic when a young couple walked out, quietly talking to one another. "She was crying," Carol noticed. "He hugged her and then she began to walk down the steps with a smile on her face and tears in her eyes."

The young woman looked at the vigil volunteers and said, "I could not do it. I just could not do it." Still, she was afraid of her mother's reaction, because it was her mother who was pushing the abortion. She also had concerns that her boyfriend might not be able to finish college. "But she took the first step in conquering those fears," Carol said, "and God will bless her."

Carol added, "There is much to be said when you realize that our prayers really make a difference. There is much to be said when you know in your heart you are part of God's plan. If you have not yet gotten involved in 40 Days for Life, I cannot tell you the blessings you will experience and the wonderful people you will meet -- all for the glory of God."

Are you invovled in the 40 Days for Life? Campaign Director David Bereit shares an incredible testimony from a participant in Fresno, California:

I stood outside of Planned Parenthood for about 6 and a half hours today, most of those hours alongside my wife, who is 9 months pregnant. A young, attractive girl started walking toward me from the Planned Parenthood driveway. I smiled at her thinking she was a Planned Parenthood employee.

The young woman said she wanted to ask me some questions, and I told her that I'd be glad to answer any questions she could think of. She asked why we were out here. At that point I knew she wasn't a Planned Parenthood employee, because she would have known exactly why we're out here! I told her that we were there to peacefully pray for an end to abortion. I introduced myself and asked for her name, and she shook my hand saying her name was Ashley.

Then she said, "Well, I changed my mind." I figured maybe she had become pro-life, so I asked her what she meant by that. Ashley responded, "I was going to have an abortion, but I'm not going to now." My eyes widened, I gave her a huge smile and told her that she was my new favorite person! (Except for my wife, of course!)

Ashley explained further that she saw a news story on TV about us this morning and knew she couldn't have an abortion. I hadn't seen that coverage yet, so I asked her what it was about the story that changed her mind. She said that she saw men and women praying and holding signs and Bibles, and she knew that she couldn't go through with the abortion.

Ashley is 16 years old and 5 weeks pregnant. Her parents wanted her to have the abortion and have now kicked her out of their house and taken her cell phone. She's living with a friend now. I began to tell Ashley about the local pregnancy care center and how much help we personally can offer her as well. I told her, "You're not alone."

St. Louis, MO -- Operation Rescue and the Christian Defense Coalition have announced plans for demonstrations surrounding the Vice-Presidential debate to be held in St. Louis on October 2.

The groups, which are coordinating with Defenders of the Unborn, Concerned Women for America, and other pro-life groups, have planned events that will both support pro-life Republican vice presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, and stand in opposition to the pro-abortion Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden.

"Governor Palin has energized the faith and pro-life constituencies like no other," said Rev. Pat Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition Director. "This is an untapped resource I think is extraordinary."

"Gov. Palin is a ray of hope that God is beginning to answer our prayers for the leadership of our nation," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "She has helped vault the plight of the pre-born to the front burner of American politics. Sen. Biden, on the other hand, is an enemy of Life and should be exposed and rebuked."

"She is a pro-life candidate. All Christians must band together to elect her to the White House," said Mary Maschmeier of the St. Louis group Defenders of the Unborn.

Events scheduled so far include the following:

Rally and Prayer in preparation for the Vice-Presidential Debate October 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM IL Monastero- On the campus of St. Louis University 3010 Olive Street, St. Louis

Prayer and Prayer During the Debate October 2, 2008 from 5-9 PM Skinker and Forest Park Blvd., one block from Forest Park across from Lindell Blvd.

The specific times and locations for various other activities will be determined in the next few days.

Source: Operation Rescue

I read with interest Suzanne's post (Big Blue Wave) about the changing climate in Russia in regard to abortion. It seems the country has a fledgling pro-life movement brewing and, according to the LA Times, Russian abortionist Marina Chechneva is speaking out:

These days, Chechneva is writing magazine articles about fetus development in hope of raising public opposition to abortion. After years of handling fetuses, she explains, she has come to feel a responsibility toward the unborn children.

"They should realize that what they're doing is already a murder," she said.

"This is the decision of a lifetime," gynecologist Natalia Smirnova said. "It's very important for me to show them the ultrasound picture of their fetuses. This stops most of them."

"You kill not only a child, a living being, but a part of yourself, something that was alive in you," said Irina, a 25-year-old Muscovite who has had three abortions. The young women who were interviewed declined to give their last names. "There's a trauma and a grief you suffer. You murder a child. It was much more difficult than I expected."

Still, Irina repeatedly chose abortion when she felt she was without options -- unemployed despite her university degree in accounting, married to first one man and then another who didn't want the babies. She never used birth control. She became pregnant, then went to the state clinic and waited in line for a no-cost abortion.

"It's like a conveyor belt," she said. "Women sit next to the abortion room in a line, and it happens very quickly."

The government is desperate to persuade citizens to bear more children. Russians are dying faster than they're being born, a trend that has emerged as one of the most serious challenges faced by this sprawling, scantily populated land.

What is going on in Missouri? What happened to free speech? Who do the the media and law enforcement officers in the video think they are that they can obliterate free speech and "assist Obama's campaign in making tacit threats to the public in general and McCain supporters in particular"?

Watch this video and you get the feeling that Stalin has just taken over Missouri law enforcement and Missouri public officials.

More from RealChoice on Barack Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (Warning: graphic content)

This just released, an excerpt from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:

And lastly, it would seem anyone could pay for near-universal healthcare by first taking our tax money for it, almost $140 Billion of it.

Then maybe we'll have what Canada has: doctors picking patients' names out of hats to decide which ones to treat.

With the November elections at hand and extreme polarization between party lines, the current economic crisis is being leveraged and exploited by pundits as a means to gain political advantage. Most us probably don't realize how bad the situation has become and how close the United States is to disaster. William Kristol's recent message is sobering:

I've received phone calls in the last hour from two economists I respect, one of them Larry Lindsey, the other in a position where he'd prefer not to be named. Both have government experience, neither is alarmist by nature, and they say this:

The huge European bank Fortis is apparently about to fail. The ripple effect on the American banking system could be disastrous, with bank runs, liquidity crises, and stock sell offs possible Monday. Wachovia may well fail next week. As Larry put it, this really will be 1933 soon if we don't move rapidly to stabilize the banking system.

And here's the bad news: the current bailout bill, whatever its merits and likelihood of passage, does nothing to address this.

But who's to blame? Although some bear more guilt than others, both parties have contributed to the economic crisis (Pat Buchanan):

Big Government is riding to the rescue - saddlebags full of our tax dollars - to save us from the consequences of the stupidity and folly of Big Government. New York and Washington, the twin cities responsible for the crisis, are now being hailed by the media as the 7th Cavalry, coming to rescue a beleaguered nation.

Had there not been a steady and constant infusion of easy money and credit into the U.S. economy by the Fed, for years on end, a housing bubble of the magnitude of the one that has just exploded could never have been created.

Had the politicians of both parties not coerced and pressured banks, S&Ls, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make all those sub-prime mortgages, then to tie this rotten paper to good paper, convert it into securities and sell to banks all over the world, there would have been no global financial crisis.

Had they seen this coming and acted sooner, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury would not today, like Henny Penny, be crying, "The sky is falling!" and the end times are at hand, unless we give them 5 percent of our gross domestic product to buy up suspect securities backed by sub-prime mortgages.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Leave it to present-day Democrats to skim their 20% of profits first and foremost off the top of any enormous financial-bailout benefit, shafting the taxpayers who are about to foot the bill, and giving that 20% to groups who supported Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when they modified a law in 1995 to require banks to give out more of the risky housing loans that caused the financial meltdown in the first place, a law first supported and passed by Democrat President Jimmy Carter which created the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disaster, a law that is still law in this nation...all while solely blaming the Republicans for passing another law that President Clinton collaborated on and passed.

More Facts That Keith Olbermann and his Not Ready For Prime Time Players Won't Tell You...

David Prentice notes that Researchers at the University of Milan have published results indicating that adult neural stem cells might be used as a treatment for spinal muscular atrophy. The disease is the second most common genetic disorder leading to death in childhood and there is currently no cure.

Earlier this week, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, ruled in Donna Limmer v. Linda Schunk that persons who assist in the suicide of another are still entitled to the inheritance of the deceased person. This dangerous decision encourages persons who have a financial interest in another's death to assist that person in committing suicide. [Americans United for Life]

At issue is a case in Clark County where Linda and Megan Schunk allegedly drove Edward Schunk, their husband/father, to a cabin on their property and left him there alone with a loaded shotgun. He subsequently killed himself with the gun. The case is Donna Lemmer v. Linda Schunk. Linda and Megan Schunk are inheritors under Edward's will. Another daughter of Edward's, Donna Lemmer, filed proceedings claiming that Linda and Megan should not be entitled to their inheritance because they assisted in Edward's suicide.

The court concluded that the probate statutes only disallow inheritance when there
is intentional killing, and concluded that assisting a suicide is not an intentional
killing under the probate statutes. Wisconsin does have a law which specifically
prohibits assisted suicide.

"Wisconsin Right to Life plans to seek either court or legislative action to close this
loophole. For the protection of our citizens, the state should not provide a financial
motive to those who participate in a suicide," commented Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe has used an address to the United Nations general assembly to accuse Britain and America of genocide. Strong words... are they true?

Once a regional breadbasket, an exporter of food, Zimbabwe's economy is in meltdown with the world's highest inflation rate and four out of five adults unemployed.

In case you are unaware, inflation results from a government's economic policy. It is a sophisticated and "legal" way to consume a nation and results, in Zimbabwe's case, from government printing more money as a means to conduct its business and repay debts.

The people of Zimbabwe have been plundered:

Zimbabwe's inflation rate has soared in the past three months and is now at 11.2 million percent, the highest in the world, according to the country's Central Statistical Office.

Zimbabwe's inflation rate has soared to a world high.

Official figures dated Monday show inflation has surged from the rate of 2.2 million percent recorded in May, despite the government's price controls.

The country's finance minister confirmed the new figure in an interview but said the rising inflation rate was not confined to Zimbabwe alone.

"While our case has been aggravated by the illegal sanctions imposed by the Western powers, rising food prices are a world phenomenon because of the use of bio-fuel," said Samuel Mumbengegwi. "But we will continue to fight inflation by making sure that prices charged are realistic."

Few countries have been as devastated as Zim by the policies put in place by one man. President Robert Mugabe has literally destroyed his country and is starving his people. Until the last few years, he denied there was even a problem and outlawed food imports.

There is much, much more - crimes against humanity, torture, political violence, election fraud, farm seizures, assassination, famine, etc.,

Mugabe is right in penning the word "genocide" into his United Nations speech. Unfortunately, the term he throws at others applies to himself.

Why is it that a severely injured person is called a vegetable? Mark Pickup writes:

Eight years ago, Kevin Monk of Casper Wyoming was in a terrible car accident. He suffered severe physical and brain injuries. For eighteen days after the accident Monk had no brain function and remained in a coma for another three months. During that time, his doctors tried to persuade is family to let him die.

Contrary to the doctors' predictions that Mr. Monk would never recover, he did waken from his coma. In a recent interview with the Casper Star-Tribune, Monk (33) said, "Some of the doctors told Mom and Dad to just pull the plug," His mother added, "From every place we went, they told us he'd never be anything but a vegetable." Some vegetable!
Today, Kevin Monk is well on his road to recovery and even walks unaided.

Barack Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times in 3 years and was the sole senator to speak against it on the Senate floor in 2001 and 2002. He later misrepresented his vote and then called his critics liars (here's the facts).

According to Barack Obama, these babies are not human persons when born and not eligible for legal protection. Here's the language Barack Obama objected to as "clearly threatening Roe": A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Think about it as you read this story, published by RealChoice:

An August 2, 1981 story in the Philadelphia Inquirer said that in July of 1979, Dr. Boyd Cooper performed an abortion at 23 weeks at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The 1 lb 2 oz infant boy gasped and tried to breathe. No efforts were made to revive the infant due to the parents' wishes and the infant's size. The baby was placed in a utility room used as an infant morgue. Cooper instructed nurse, "Leave the baby there -- it will die." The nurse testified that the baby was still gasping in the closet when she returned to work 12 hours later. Cooper then finally agreed to allow the baby to be transferred to intensive care, where he died 4 days later. Despite having left the child gasping, cold and alone, in a morgue for over twelve hours, the baby's death was ruled accidental.

John Piper speaks on abortion ...

HT: Reviving Mothers

This video is really meant for Obama supporters and all Democrats everywhere (except for Democrats For Life), and ESPECIALLY those who call themselves Catholics or Christians.

WARNING: THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO IS VERY GRAPHIC.

For those who are post-abortive and not sure how you feel anymore about your abortions, please do NOT watch this. I'm very serious about that. It is quite graphic, with absolutely amazing video footage I could not have watched before I attended my Rachel's Vineyard retreat and probably not even for a long time afterward. I had trouble watching it even now. Had to close my eyes and not look at some of it.

Even if you've been on a post-abortion recovery retreat or some other kind of service, please consider not watching it.

Yet the music...close your eyes and listen to the words of the song if nothing else. Especially if you support Obama AND describe yourself as a Christian of any kind.

Part 1 of Pro-Life Unity's interview with Jill Stanek at the 2008 Values Voter Summit: She recalls the horrifying moment that made her into a pro-life activist and start her long road to end abortion -- the cradling of a Down's Syndrome baby that was aborted alive.

Eyeblast Version - Part 1

YouTube Version - Parts 1 & 2 combined

For more videos and information on the efforts of Pro-Life Unity, click here to visit ProLifeUnity.com.

Our friend from Arizona, Len Munsil, has given us permission to reproduce his well framed article LIBERALS NOW BELIEVE YOU CAN LEGISLATE MORALITY:

For decades liberals have told conservatives that when it comes to laws protecting innocent human life, defining marriage, or regulating gambling or pornography to protect families from harm -- "you can't legislate morality."

But tonight, in response to a national financial meltdown, the same liberals who argue that law can't influence moral behavior, seem to believe all our financial problems can be solved by more laws regulating moral behavior.

Particularly amusing was Rep. Barney Frank -- a prime promoter of the "you can't legislate morality" crowd who was all over television tonight decrying the immorality of Wall Street and promising new laws to legislate morality in the financial industries.

This is the same Barney Frank who, while a Congressman, had a gay lover running a male prostitution ring from his home. Now it turns out that another former gay lover of the Congressman -- who Frank described as his "spouse" -- was a top executive at Fannie May while Rep. Frank was defending and receiving lots of campaign cash from Fannie May.

All law provides a dividing line between right and wrong conduct. And of course law itself cannot prevent wrong behavior, or else we would have no theft or murder. Debates over the wisdom of legislation on issues from abortion to civil rights to financial fraud are legitimate and welcome, especially as we balance our commitment to individual liberty against the regulatory power of government.

The question on any of these issues is not whether we can legislate morality. The question is: "what moral rules are best for governing society?" With this latest attempt by liberals to legislate morality, perhaps we can have a more honest debate over other issues that liberals try to dismiss as "off limits."

And let's hope the moral zealots of the left, in their desire to punish Wall Street wrongdoers for this latest crisis, don't produce even more rules that stifle economic freedom in a way that is truly destructive to our nation's future prosperity.

In reality, there is no law that does not have a moral dimension. Law makers legislate based upon what they perceive to be right and wrong. The question is upon what standard do they determine right and wrong?

With any number of significant issues worth addressing with serious journalists, David Letterman gave John McCain a "serious roasting Wednesday night for scrubbing an appearance roughly one hour before the taping." I wouldn't blame either candidate for canceling an appearance with Letterman in favor of almost anyone else, particularly at a time when the country faces a significant economic crisis.

Beyond this, I sure hope Americans have enough depth to evaluate presidential candidates on the basis of their objective stands (yes, on issues such as abortion) and view of justice, civil liberties and economic policy rather than whether or not a Late Night Talk Show host feels snubbed.

What do you think?

With so much attention on the economy, one area of federal legislation that can be overlooked is abortion. An old and dangerous bill that will increase abortions by an enormous amount is being resurrected by abortion advocates: the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). H.R. 1964 and S.1173. FOCA is usually reported as "codifying Roe v. Wade," but it is much more....

For a guy who supports infanticide, what's 125,000 more abortions, give or take a few?

Cross-posted: Hyscience

Last week, BornAliveTruth.org unveiled its premier ad, featuring for the first time ever an abortion survivor speaking to a national audience. In the ad, Gianna Jessen appealed to Barack Obama to reconsider his prejudice against gutsy babies like her.

Gianna was aborted in 1977 by infamous CA abortionist Edward Allred, who is named on her birth certificate as her attending physician. Gianna's 17-year-old mother aborted her at 29-1/2 weeks' gestation after belatedly deciding the time wasn't right....

Gianna was externally and internally scalded [by a saline solution] for 18 hours, but her mother's bag of waters ruptured before Gianna died, and Gianna was delivered kicking and squalling....

Were it up to Obama, Gianna would not be here.

Doubt me? Obama's website lists the following language as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe" from the first, second and third versions the IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act:

A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

In Obama's mind, Gianna was not a human person when born and not eligible for legal protection.

If Obama doesn't believe abortion survivors are legal persons, it is perfectly legal to draw and quarter them by the dilatation and extraction (D&E) abortion procedure after delivery. It is perfectly legal to drown them in a bucket of water, the equivalent to a hysterotomy abortion wherein the baby is drowned in amniotic fluid. Obama must explain why this absolutely wouldn't be so....

Continue reading my column, "Gianna Jessen: Above Obama's pay grade," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Should feelings of pity reduce the consequences of murder?

Joanne Hill, who murdered her daughter with cerebral palsy, won't be eligible for parole for at least 15 years:

Judge Elgan Edwards told Hill: "There can be no excuse for what you did."

The judge said: "You killed your own daughter because you could not cope with her disability. You had other pressures upon you, a disintegrating marriage, and you decided to kill your own daughter by drowning her."

However, I can't help but think that Ms. Hill's lawyer chose the wrong defense strategy. Recall Robert Latimer, the Canadian who murdered his daughter Traci because she had cerebral palsy--an act supported by his wife after the fact and applauded widely in Canada. Latimer's defense was he was doing it for Traci, as a compassionate and loving act. He got off with a several years in prison, and the jury didn't even want him to serve that much time.

Americans United for Life (AUL) has filed comments with the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) affirming the need for a proposed regulation that will protect the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers nationwide.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL said, "Protecting the rights of healthcare providers is critical to the continuing viability and safety of our healthcare system."

"Protecting conscience helps to ensure that providers enter and remain in the healthcare professions, helping to meet the rising demand for quality care," continued Yoest. "Failing to protect freedom of conscience will most certainly compromise basic healthcare for the entire nation."

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President & Legal Director added, "Laws such as the proposed HHS regulation acknowledge that certain demands of patients, usually for procedures that are life-destructive and not life-saving, must not be blindly accommodated to the detriment of the freedom of healthcare providers."

The proposed HHS regulation will require recipients of federal funding through HHS to certify compliance with existing federal laws including the Hyde-Weldon Amendment and the Church Amendment, which protect the right of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortions for reasons of conscience.

In its comments, AUL argues that the proposed regulation is a much-needed and long-overdue enforcement mechanism for existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience. In addition, the failure to adequately protect conscience -- through both appropriate laws and requisite enforcement mechanisms -- will only exacerbate the existing healthcare crisis in this country.

To view AUL's comments, go to http://www.aul.org/hhsroc

Wisconsin stem cell researcher James Thomson has shifted his focus:

"I personally believe that the future is in the (adult skin) cells," said Thomson, speaking during a press conference on Tuesday. "But the future is not here yet."

He told MSBNC that he understands the technology still has a long way to go and that embryonic stem cells are not being used in any human clinical trials yet.

"I'm very hopeful that there will be some transplantation applications for this technology, but they're going to be very challenging," he told MSNBC. "And it's been so hyped in the press that people expect it to come the day after tomorrow."

Thomson conceded that embryonic stem cell cures may not be available until "ten to twenty years from now."

You see, the dismal track record and unattainable promises of ESC research are not the fundamental problem with it. The fatal flaw in ESC research is that scientists must "destroy" (a synonym for "kill") a human being to extract the stem cells they need. Emotionally based appeals are made to justify the practice by demeaning the unborn and undeveloped person and claiming an embryo is not as important as someone who has developed and is in need of the embryo's parts. However, the mystical point in time that a human embryo develops into a human who cannot be sacrificed for science is unknown.

Adult stem cell research has none of these problems and actually yields technology that helps people.

Call it bias, bad journalism, being in the tank for Obama, dishonestly biased journalism, or all of these (my personal choice), the old media continues to get it disgustingly, purposefully, wrong with a negative slant when it comes to reporting anything having to do with Sarah Palin.

And once again, NewsBusters has busted them:

At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin "charged rape victims for rape kits" performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla. The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy. Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

Read it all ...

American Life League supporters Tuesday celebrated the news that Planned Parenthood Columbia-Willamette took down the videos on the lewd TakeCareDownThere.com web site that was first launched in July.

The video site, which Planned Parenthood marketed as "sex education," included skits of two teenage boys engaged in oral sex, girls and boys examining each other's reproductive organs, couples talking about participating in orgies and masturbation among others.

When American Life League alerted the pro-life movement to the site, the story made national headlines.

A.L.L. president Judie Brown issued the following statement.

"Praise God!" said Judie Brown, "after months of pro-life outcry against this site, we can finally rest knowing this site will no longer threaten our kids. Planned Parenthood finally pushed the envelope past the point of tolerance. Every person concerned with the health and wellbeing of our children should have been outraged by this blatant attempt to sexualize kids. It appears the roar of just anger over this Planned Parenthood filth was so great, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain had to shut it down. This is truly a great day."

Related: Planned Parenthood's "Take care down there" videos removed!

[Like] many of us Christians who deeply lament the unbiblical support from our brothers and sisters of offensive war, murder, lying and blasphemy - and those who have sold themselves out to John McCain's "evil" because it is "less evil" than Barack Obama's "evil" has decided to embrace a genuinely Christian candidate in Chuck Baldwin. From the pastor himself:

For one thing, a sizeable number of believers allowed President George W. Bush to redefine their Christian principles almost out of existence. They willingly looked the other way while Bush betrayed his word (not to mention the Constitution) and catapulted conservative principles into outer darkness. To the point, that they can now even support someone as liberal as John McCain and still call him a "conservative."

Sarah Palin drew a crowd of over 60,000 people in Florida the other day.

The reaction of the press- ho hum.

Ask yourself where did you hear about the crowds.

Did you hear about the 18,000 who met her in Colorado Springs?

And she did not have to hire a rock band to draw the people.

Let me predict that the way that the mainstream media is going to deal with Palin from now on is to ignore her. They think that she is simply a creation of their obsession and if they do not talk about her, she will go away.

The truth is that Gov. Sarah Palin strikes a chord with all Americans.
She loves her country in an honest forthright way.

She believes in God and is not afraid to say she wants to do His will.

She loves life, born and unborn, and family and her husband and her children.

She became governor not through marriage, or by knowing the powers that be, or by eliminating the competition through the old boys' network, but with hard work and an honest message of reform.

She continues to surprise everyone. She is the Alaskan Avalanche.

Now keep passing the word that Sarah Palin has the media shaking in their collective boots.

And make sure everyone is registered to vote.

Eight (plus?) More Reasons To Doubt Obama's Message and Leadership:

Democrat readers and/or Obama supporters probably won't bother to read this all the way through, nor the various links provided herein, but it's all fact and it's all out there nonetheless, whether the beloved Keith Olberman's of the world are telling you these facts or not, whether you "believe" it or not:

1. The Obama-Ayers connection: Chicago Annenberg Challenge, also discussed here, Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools:

   Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

   The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

   
   
2. "Obama's Social Security Whopper: Obama tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False."

   Read on for more. We can't make this stuff up.

National Life Chain Sunday 2008 is October 5

Annually, on the first Sunday in October, LIFE CHAIN invites the churches in each city and town across North America to stand on a designated local sidewalk and pray for one hour.

In 2007, well over 1,300 Life Chains were built in cities and towns across America and Canada and posted on LifeChain.net. The focus is now on Lord willing, from 2:30 to 3:30 pm (or the time preferred by the local Life Chain Committee) in each time zone across North America. To include your city in 2008, notify National Life Chain of your interest via email National Life Chain or call (530) 674-5068 and download (from this web site) a copy of the Life Chain Manual and the other entries under "LIFE CHAIN Materials." Thereafter, inform your local pastors of your Life Chain plans as soon as possible, and ask them to schedule your Chain on their church calendar.

Despite convoluted descriptions of Barack Obama's position on abortion, it has become quite clear that it is anything but "nuanced."

Dave Andrusko, writing for the National Right to Life, lays out Obama's strategy:

It is one thing to say that there are many people of faith who will not necessarily vote for the pro-life candidate just because he or she stands up for unborn children. It is quite another to say that these same people wouldn't be aghast if they had any idea how militantly, across the board (and beyond) anti-life Obama actually is.

The key to Obama's forays into the Christian community is to convince its various and diverse membership that if he's not exactly in the mainstream, he is at least close. That while he is "pro-choice," he's really serious about "reducing the number of abortions."

In other words, please don't look at my record. If you do you will see the ultimate Stepford Husband, a guy who will do anything the PPFAs and NARALs and NOWs of this world tell him to do.

1. Obama wishes to vaporize the Hyde Amendment. As pro-abortionists themselves are the first to acknowledge (ruefully), the Hyde Amendment saves lives--at a minimum one million!


2. In addition to ending that proven abortion-reducer, Obama "wants to enact a mandatory national health insurance program that would also mandate coverage of abortion on demand." The multiplier effect of this initiative is almost incalculable.


3. Obama can't wait to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act." FOCA would terminate other proven abortion-reducing laws, such as women's right to know laws, waiting periods, and parental notification laws. These laws have saved countless lives, but no matter. As Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."


4. Obama even goes so far as to "advocates repeal of the national ban on partial-birth abortions (which the FOCA would also accomplish)."


5. Finally while a member of the Illinois state Senate, Obama "led the opposition to legislation to provide protection and care for babies who are born alive during abortions," as NRLC has thoroughly documented at http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html. He was no passive spectator, but the ringleader.

Ron Paul continues to shake things up by endorsing a third-party candidate for president:

I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.

I recently had an idea for a post. My concept was that if an American Pro-Life Hall of Fame existed, who would be the inaugural class? Who would be the first five people to be honored based on the last 30+ years of the pro-life cause? The most influential individuals involved with the cause?

The guidelines would be that an eligible person for election would have to be American born and have exposure at a national level. To come up with this list, I spoke with someone whom I believe is a leading authority on the pro-life cause, and its history, in America. We bounced ideas off each other, and came up with the following list of whom we would select as the inaugural class trying to cover the multi-facets of the cause and our society:

This video is making the rounds in a big way tonight...re-launched from the intial release in the Spring. Warning...it does contain some images pro-abortionists might not find offensive (HT - FR):

Barack Obama fought against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would have provided basic medical care to any infants that survive an abortion attempt. He wants to kill those infants born alive.

Link: Creative Minority Report

Here's an explosive audio found with Obama arguing against Born Alive Infant Protection Act:

Related: Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

Related: BornAliveTruth.org

Americans United for Life's Charmaine Yoest takes on a Planned Parenthood spokesperson during this September 18 Fox News segment featuring debating on which presidential candidate will win the day on the abortion issue (JillStanek.com).

Isn't interesting that Barack Obama supporters continue to assert that his position is ""nuanced"? How nuanced is this (The Quick and the Dead):

Back to the phony video about Sarah Palin that was posted to youtube by a PR professional - Ethan Winner has confessed but states he acted on his own:

September 22, 2008

1:30 pm PDT

Statement of Ethan Winner

The following is in response to questions I have received regarding the post on the Jawa Report website.

I produced and posted on the Internet the video entitled "Sarah Palin: A Heartbeat Away."

The idea for the video was mine. No one paid me to produce it. The only out-of-pocket cost will be the fee for the voice-over narrator, which I will pay personally when I receive an invoice. Contrary to the allegation in the Jawa Report, the voice-over artist has never done any work for the Obama campaign. I retained her through a talent agency based solely on the quality of her voice.

Neither the Obama campaign nor any independent political action committee has had a connection with the making and/or posting of this video. Just like the thousands of Americans who have posted videos on the Internet regarding the current Presidential campaign, I produced this video as an expression of my right to free speech, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Disappearance of Obama's Abortion Reduction Plan: One Political Theory, submitted by Steven Waldman

At the Saddleback Forum, Obama boasted, accurately, about how he'd stuck a sentence into the Democratic platform encouraging support for women who wanted totake a baby to term instead of having an abortion. Pro-life progressives hailed that sentence as a great victory and sign that he might be able to win over moderate evangelicals and Catholics with this new "third way" approach.

Then, the first abortion ads put out by the Obama campaign, didn't mention abortion reduction.

Last week, they put out a second abortion ad, this one trying to deal with the charge that Obama supports infanticide. They had two different (not mutually exclusive) ways they could have gone: Show themselves to be abortion moderates by emphasizing abortion reduction, or show McCain to be an anti-abortion extremist by emphasizing the Republican platform. The Obama campaign chose the second path. Again, no mention of abortion reduction.

Day Gardner, president of The National Black Pro-Life Union, makes the following comments and is available for interviews:

Barack Obama voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would protect babies who survived abortion.

He misrepresented his vote, saying that the bill he opposed in the Illinois State Senate was different from the bill that was passed by the US Senate and signed into law by President Bush. However, the National Right to Life Committee has produced documents that confirm the two bills were exactly the same.

To make matters even worse, Obama is now attacking Gianna Jessen, a young woman who by some blessing, miraculously, survived being killed by abortion.

Rather than applaud her life, he totally disregards her and ignores her passionate plea for the lives of babies who after surviving abortion--are strangled, suffocated, stabbed to death, or shelved until dead-- which amounts to infanticide.

Barack Obama's is far more extreme than anyone else on this issue.

It is hard to believe that this man vying for the highest office in America would not only oppose legislation to protect children born alive, but would then lie about it for 4 years stating that he did not oppose it.

Mr. Obama behaves like a small child caught with his hand in the cookie jar--instead of telling the truth, he continues to deny the obvious and spouts tall tales like some children do.

Okay, we'll make it easy for you, Barack. Maybe you failed to actually read the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and voted against it by mistake, everyone has an off day, right? Just own up to it.

Day Gardner is president of The National Black Pro- Life Union, an organization founded to serve as a clearing house to coordinate the flow of communications among all African American pro-life organizations and individuals in order to better network and combine resources. www.nationalblackprolifeunion.com

Source: National Black Pro-Life Union press release

Related: BornAliveTruth

Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.

First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.

Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.

Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.

The most dangerous place in the world is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe or the Congo. The most dangerous place in the world is the womb. Pre-born babies are being killed in their mother's wombs at a greater rate than any other section of society.

A growing number of Christians worldwide are beginning to recognise the abortion holocaust as the greatest crime being committed in the world today. It is an urgent priority for the Church to expose, oppose and end this war against children made in the image of God.

Here is a remarkable investigative piece by the Jawa Report which suggests that the rumors and false allegations about Sarah Palin may have been the work of a professional public relations firm. Although not conclusive, and often hanging on what could be coincidence (e.g., identical alias used in multiple systems), I think the probability is quite high that at least some of the associations will be proven within the next 24 hours. The YouTube video at the source of the controversy has already been removed by its poster although the Google version is still online.

Update: Rusty has re-posted the youtube video and provided a screen capture from the original poster's account (eswinner). The story is going to be huge tomorrow.

Update2: "Eswinner"'s youtube account has been deleted. A related YouTube account, "Gocamerica," that was spreading the lie has now also tried covering its tracks and has been closed. See Michelle Malkin and Hyscience for more. With the criticism the eswinner account was receiving after the Jawa Report story first was published, I figured this would happen and captured screenshots last night [click here and here], shortly after the video was removed from youtube.

The video is professionally produced and appears tied through the user's alias (and other similar evidence) to a Democrat-linked high profile media consulting firm. There are other associations as well which may lead investigators quite close to the Barack Obama campaign.

I'm posting their summary but you'll want to read the entire report:

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

• Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.


• The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.


• Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.


• Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.


• The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.


• This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."


• David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.


• The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe.

Politics aside, if this was the professional manipulation that it appears to be, it is not good for blogs, Left or Right. It undermines their credibility and makes them no better than a propaganda tool become smear merchant for whatever candidate they happen to support.

The latest creative attack on Sarah Palin by abortion advocates urges others via email to make a donation to PP in the name candidate's name. Yes, this is insidious and reflects desperation:

"We may have thought we wanted a woman on a national political ticket, but the joke has really been on us, hasn't it?" the email asks. "Are you as sick in your stomach as I am at the thought of Sarah Palin as Vice President of the United States?"

The email, which created an Internet buzz over the weekend, goes on to say, "None of you, however, can be happy with Palin's selection, especially on her positions on women's issues."

As if it wasn't abundantly clear already, some single issue abortion rights propagandists are using Palin's pro-life commitment as a fund raising mechanism.

Read the email and great commentary at Crunchy Con.

What's the most important item on Barack Obama's agenda?

Note his priorities: "The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." - Barack Obama

Yet, the NY Times suggests Obama's position is "nuanced" in an editorial praising a federal judge in Virginia who has blocked a group from running ads on Barack Obama's positions on abortion. Ed Lasky (The American Thinker) writes,

"Nuanced"- I guess that is an intellectual way to describe and cover "lying". The Times editorial board are well-versed in such "nuance" for they are lying about Barack Obama (and Joe Biden's) record on policy proposals.

Barack Obama would allow taxpayer's funding for abortion, would help minors conceal abortions from their parents and legalize late-term abortions.

Update: Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share. - David Freddoso

The world premiere of the 30-minute "being HUMAN" documentary, filmed by an Emmy-award-winning director, is tonight.

Here are the details:

WHAT: "being HUMAN: 40 Days for Life II"

DATE: THIS WEEKEND! Sunday, September 21

TIME: 9:00 PM Eastern (6:00 PM Pacific)

WHERE: Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)-
available in most markets

PREVIEW: http://www.40daysforlife.com/about.cfm

If EWTN is not available in your area you can watch the show LIVE on the EWTN web site:

1. Go to http://www.ewtn.com at 9:00 PM Eastern


2. On the black navigation bar across the top of the page, hover your cursor over "Television"


3. From the drop-down menu, select "Live TV - English" (or "Live TV - Spanish")


4. From the next drop-down menu, hover your cursor over the version of Windows Media Player you wish to use for watching the show.


5. Click the link that says "Click here to view US feed now!"


6. A new window should open with the live video.

Source: David Bereit, National Campaign Director, 40 Days for Life

Breaking news from Born Alive Truth:

You are invited to attend an emergency conference call this Tuesday evening, September 23, at 9:30 PM Eastern (6:30 PM Pacific) to hear abortion survivor Gianna Jessen and nurse Jill Stanek expose the shocking truth about how Barack Obama voted 4 times as an IL State Senator to deny lifesaving medical help to infants who were born alive after a failed abortion.

Jill is the nurse who discovered that these helpless babies were being left to die in the dirty utility room along with the trash, and testified before Barack Obama to tell her story.

gianna.jpgGianna is the amazing and beautiful woman who herself survived an abortion 31 years ago.

Barack Obama now has the audacity to deceptively deny his own voting record and is personally attacking Gianna and trying to smear her credibility!

Please register for this urgent conference call (that will also be simulcast on the web) to hear the truth directly from these two courageous women and to help Gianna defend herself from Obama's cowardly personal attacks.

Spread the word and ask all of your friends to join this vital discussion as well. Gianna urgently needs your help, and people need to know the truth about Barack Obama.

Please join us Tuesday evening at 9:30 PM Eastern, 8:30 PM Central, 7:30 PM Mountain, 6:30 PM Pacific.

Click here to register

In an ad attacking the McCain campaign (rather than the group who is actually criticizing him), Barack Obama continues to use deception to cover up the fact that he voted four times against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act and was its sole voice of opposition on the Senate floor. Carefully worded, Obama's ad asserts that he has "always supported medical care to protect infants." Here it is:

Does that include "newborn" infants or does Obama not consider these to be "infants". Here's what he said about babies who survive abortions in a 2002 senate floor speech:

Links to more of Obama's statements and records can be found here.

Jill Stanek and abortion survivor Gianna Jessen have both released statements in response to Barack Obama's ad:

Statement from Gianna Jessen: Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion - as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice in public policy almost left me to die and no one should have to go through what I went through.

Statement from Jill Stanek: It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen. She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama's policies had been in place when she was born. Mr. Obama continues to mislead the American people on this issue, he voted four times against medical care and protection for babies who survive abortions in the Illinois State Senate, while the U.S. Senate was voting 98-0 to pass an identical bill. Mr. Obama needs to come forward and tell the American people that he understands people like Gianna Jessen, and that he will support and enforce Born Alive Infant protections -- that these are living, breathing human beings who have come into our world and deserve protection in the law and should receive medical care at health care facilities. These babies have the same rights as the rest of us.

Visit Born Alive Truth and JillStanek.com..

It may be hard to believe, but this year marks the fourth anniversary of prolifeblogs.com. During this time we've participated in some remarkable pro-life events and have made progress by networking and supporting other bloggers. We've formed long-lasting friendships and have grown to recognize that the internet is a powerful tool for bringing like minded individuals together to declare the dignity of human life and to speak-up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

There is much more that I could write but time is of the essence. You see, after four years, the design and engine behind prolifeblogs.com is failing and the original software is hopelessly outdated.

As a result, change is necessary and begins today. The "Quick Picks" on our homepage is a test of our new database engine and pro-life filter. We also have a new modular lay-out that will enable site-wide consistency and have re-designed the pages listing our members which will make finding listings (and editing them) much easier.

All this to say that prolifeblogs.com will be up and down over the next few days. Please check back regularly and give input about what you like and what we can do better.

Thanks for reading!

From The Telegraph

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

[snip]

Lady Warnock said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

"I think that's the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you'd be licensing people to put others down."

By Judie Brown

At American Life League, we have spent nearly 30 years trying in every way we can to humanize the preborn baby, even when he is a single-cell zygote. We have challenged those who deny the personhood of the preborn to explain what precisely is different between the way their life began and the way every person's life begins. The response is usually something rather obtuse that translates into "Don't bother me with the truth." I am sure you know all about that type of intellectually stimulating argument.

So, I am encouraged when I tell you that my good friends at Colorado for Equal Rights are making a lot of headway in their campaign to amend the state constitution by clarifying that every human being, from his beginning, is a person. They have brought the truth out of the closet of political correctness.

But in the process, the enemies of human life have come out of the woodwork, and things are heating up in Colorado. Just yesterday, the Denver Post ran a rather interesting article focused on the individuals and organizations opposing Amendment 48. The article gives us a lot to think about because it provides the rhetorical mumbo-jumbo pro-aborts are using to try to defeat the personhood initiative. It is nothing new, but perhaps it bears repeating, for those who constantly strive to develop pro-life apologetics that actually resonate in our current, declining culture.

One slogan on an anti-Amendment 48 T-shirt is "Women's health matters." The T-shirt is clearly designed to imply that pregnancy can make a mother very unhealthy, and that is why only the woman should have the "right to choose." The message subliminally asserts that pregnancy is a condition in need of treatment, and in the abortion world, the treatment of choice is abortion.

On September 16th, the Kansas Coalition for Life posted a video exposing Obama's ProAbortion Choice position, and without any communication with us, it has been blocked by YouTube (as of September 18th), due to not meeting a "Community Guideline". However, the video is in no way distasteful, pornographic or outside of the ordinary. It does however make a strong point, and we feel that it was pulled ONLY because it makes a simple, clear statement about what Obama's change is all about.

The very short video (00:01:13) is entitled "Obama: The WRONG Change for Children." It does include one graphic abortion photo and a diagram of the hideous partial birth abortion procedure which Obama supports via his voting record. However, there is a clear warning at the beginning of the video stating that it contains graphic images showing what Obama supports.

YouTube issued a community guidelines warning strike about our video critical of Obama. Obviously, YouTube did not want the video to be seen. They threatened potential termination of the account if there are further violations.

There are many prolife videos which contain numerous graphic photos. YouTube allows them to remain. We are aware of a particular prolife video with many graphic photos throughout. It was flagged and merely restricted to users who are age eighteen and over. But ours, which had far less graphic content but which criticized Obama, received different treatment. Why is YouTube inconsistent in the enforcement of its "Community Guidelines"?

Taking into account the example provided above, you can come to your own conclusions about why this video, which exposes Obama for the abortion extremist that he is, was removed by YouTube, and we were threatened with potential termination. We have posted it on an alternative video sharing site and it is linked below. (Again, note that there is graphic content featuring a photo of an aborted baby.)

Link to video:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/kcfl/videos/4/

The Kansas Coalition for Life places 167 crosses in front of George Tiller's late-term abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas, each day. The crosses are displayed during all hours that Tiller's facility is open. Volunteers are needed in order to watch the crosses at all times that they are displayed. Your help is needed and greatly appreciated. Volunteers come from all over the country to take a shift. If you are interested in assisting us, please visit http://www.kcfl.net.

In the culture of death, "choice" is a code word that means some can do whatever they want while others are compelled to violate their conscience as an act of ultimate subjection. And, "choice" is tyranny in disguise, because it givens some the power to take the life of another.

At issue is the freedom of health care workers to act with integrity by making the right choice, the one that recognizes the dignity of human life. You can make a difference:

Janeane Garafalo And Friends Lost In The Deceptive Black Hole Of "Reproductive Justice"

Are Janeane Garafalo and most Hollywood stars, Senator Obama, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all those others on the "left" lost in space...lost in black holes of egotistical, self-centered edification to the point where all decency and morality have been sucked out them by the vacuum of their own liberal deceptions?

I must assume "Yes" is the answer to this question in light of the barrage of hate-filled words no longer veiled in innuendo being slung across the air waves by those claiming intellectual superiority and enlightenment. This is the prism they look through and Janeane Garafalo's rant this week on "Real Time with Bill Maher" about abortion and other matters was and is no exception. This is the scary part. She is only the tip of the iceberg.

Once again the "left" have dressed the pig named Abortion up in a new lipstick called, Reproductive Justice (viewer discretion, abortion video link has graphic depictions).

The insidiousness embraced by such opponents of life goes much deeper and frankly I am at a loss to show you in such a short OpEd the breadth and width of this black hole of injustice as it relates to society at large. There is indeed an elephant in the room and we need to recognize it for the "MONSTER" it truly is...a monster who elicits many a silent scream from the "least of these."

Just ask Gianna Jessen about surviving in a saline filled black hole for 18 hours as an abortionist took what was supposed to be a place of life and nourishment--transforming it into a pit of "reproductive justice." Review all the information about her testimony as it relates to the Senator Obama and the Democratic Party's platform. Find more in-depth information at Eternal Perspectives.

From the astute research of Nugent's Law blog's Nicholas Nugent:

Cass Sunstein, the brilliant and incredibly prolific constitutional law scholar, who just left the University of Chicago for greener pastures at Harvard, has written an editorial warning us about the dangers of electing McCain and Palin, who would most certainly, we are told, pack the federal courts with extreme right-wing ideologues.

However, in his attempt to scare us about a McCain-packed Supreme Court, he engages in a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty that is, frankly, beneath a man of such intelligence and nuance.

He starts with abortion, and what might happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned as the result of McCain appointees to the Supreme Court:

We might well return to a period in which states threatened to subject pregnant women, and their doctors, with jail sentences for exercising the right to choose. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and there is no doubt that many states would attempt to enact that belief into law.

First of all, in the states that prohibited abortion prior to Roe, the law rarely implicated the mother. Either the law punished only the abortionist (as was the case in the Texas law struck down in Roe) or the law was enforced (if ever) only against the abortionist. Examples of women actually being fined, much less jailed, for obtaining an abortion are few and far between. Sunstein either doesn't know his abortion history, or knows it and is trying to shade the truth with the phrase "threatened to subject pregnant women." [emphasis mine]

What IS John McCain's position on abortion and life issues? That may seem like an odd question. He has just appointed an antiabortion heroine to his ticket and approved the most antiabortion Republican platform ever. Surely if anything is certain in this shifting campaign it's that John McCain is ardently against abortion.

Not if you go by his statements this past week.

On The View, he was asked about abortion, and said he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's no change. But his emphasis was fascinating. First, he stressed that he would not impose a litmus test in favor of antiabortion (or abortion rights) judges. Then, instead of arguing that Roe needed to be overturned because abortion is wrong, he emphasized a states' rights position - that the state government, not the Supreme Court, should decide.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "So it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart that's the issue. You want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench."

Sen. McCain: "And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned then the states would make these decisions."

Compare that to the Republican platform, which goes well beyond overturning Roe, endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all 50 states, even in cases of rape and incest. Sen. McCain has said he supports the platform but mysteriously didn't mention the ban during his comments on The View.

Delighting Conservatives at Saddleback

Or compare his View comments to what he said at Saddleback Church on Aug. 16 when he delighted the conservative crowd with his ardently antiabortion views - "I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies" -- and didn't mention states' rights at all.

In her interview with Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin followed the lead of her ticket-mate, emphasizing that while she's personally antiabortion, "states should be able to decide that issue." She then uttered a few words that had been deemed utterly inappropriate by the Republican Party's platform committee just two weeks ago. An early platform draft had included this olive-branch sentence: "We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion." Religious conservatives deleted the sentence, arguing that it sounded too much like Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

But there was Alaska Gov. Palin with the olive-branch, telling Mr. Gibson that she wanted to "reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America." (For full texts of their statements on abortion, http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/mccainpalin-positions-on-abort.html click here and http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/mccainpalin-positions-on-abort.htmlhere.)

Then there's the confusing new advertisement about stem cell research. The Republican platform this year called for a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. But a new McCain-Palin ad declares: "John McCain will lead his congressional allies to improve America's health. Stem-cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem-cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness. Stem-cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns. Stem-cell research to help stroke victims."

Technically, the ad doesn't specify whether he meant embryonic stem cell but usually when politicians hit stem-cell research so hard they mean embryonic unless they specify otherwise.

Stirring Up New Questions

These new statements leave new questions: if Roe were overturned and Congress passed a ban on abortion, would they sign it (being pro-life) or veto it (since they want the states to decide)? Do they still support the Republican Party's position in favor of a 50-state ban on all abortion? Does he support embryonic stem cell research in contradiction to the Republican platform?

Sen. McCain hasn't done a blatant flip-flop. But his emphasis has shifted significantly, over time and depending on the audience. He now seems to be in partial conflict with the Republican platform.

At the Republican convention, the Family Research Council's Connie Mackey told me how surprised religious conservatives were when Sen. McCain chose Gov. Palin as his running mate. They figured that since they won on the platform, they'd lose on the vice president. Instead they got both. They were thrilled.

Sen. McCain's comments this week raise a different possibility: that by embracing a sharply antiabortion platform and running mate, he now feels free to move to the center on abortion to appeal to independent and pro-choice voters. He's betting that antiabortion activists are now so invested in the success of the McCain-Palin ticket that they will cut him slack.

So far, they have - providing a sweet tactical assist to Sen. McCain's operatives.

But this strategy carries some risks. The religious conservatives are energized by Gov. Palin, but if Sen. McCain goes too far to the center, he'll end up reminding religious conservatives why they hated him in the first place. Gov. Palin might come to be viewed less as the woman who would transform John McCain as the heroine who was turned into a temporizing hack by John McCain.

HT: PalinPlanet

Among others, a writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism justifies eugenic practice (i.e., selective abortion) through a consistent application of utilitarian principles which correlate human dignity and productivity. The end result: Sarah Palin Condemned for Not Killing Her Baby (see Lifenews for the full report).

For the Center, Nicholas Provenzo writes:

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

The fundamental rationale behind his point is the marginal productivity and burden of disabled individuals on others. It is commentary like this which reveals the hideous nature of rejecting the intrinsic God-given dignity of human life in preference to a standard which is man-centered.

The valuation of human life on the basis of a characteristic, quality or contribution inevitably leads to the oppression of the undesirable; those whom others find "inconvenient" or of little worth. This view of human value requires a defining accidental characteristic to provide worth and another person to recognize it. Because value depends on a characteristic or quality, if either is absent or lost, the person loses his or her worth.

With the controversy over Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Gianna Jessen is speaking out. She survived a late-term saline abortion and comments,

Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I'm a survivor, as are many others...but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted four times against affording these babies their most basic human right. I have serious concerns about Senator Obama's record and views on this issue, given he voted against these protections four times as a state Senator. Just as abuse victims share their stories to educate the public, fight for the common good and hope that as a result politicians do what's right, I felt it was important to come forward and give these new born babies a voice.

I am living proof these babies have a right to live, and I invite you to learn more about Senator Obama's record on this important issue.

-Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen

On this topic, Dr. Melissa writes about her own experience:

A note on late-term abortions: My sons were born at 24 weeks gestation. One died after contracting MRSA at the hospital. One received the best medical care and is now in 5th grade. These are children. People. The notion of having a botched late term abortion and then allowing that child to die, or actively kill the child is beyond barbaric.

Radical leftists like Obama embrace eugenics and a life inconvenienced by unplanned children. It is horrifying. What birth defect do you have that makes you unworthy? What circumstance created your inconvenient existence?

An editorial submitted by Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger was published in today's Wichita Eagle correcting errors in reporting of motions filed on Monday in the Tiller criminal case, and clarifying other issues.

Of course, the Eagle heavily edited its content. Compare the two: unedited version versus edited version.

Wow, this is significantly more relaxed than the now notorious Charlie Gibson interview. In Part 3, Palin describes her role in the McCain administration in the areas of energy reform, helping families with special needs children and strengthening the NIH.

Part 1: On reforming the economy

Congressman Bill Sali of Idaho has submitted the following comment in support of the HHS proposed rule supporting health providers' moral conscience.

This rule addresses action taken by the by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology several months ago. Based upon an ethics opinion, medical practitioners could potentially lose their board certification if they fail to participate in abortion referrals and other morally contentious activities.

The text of Mr. Sali's comment to HHS follows:

"On August 21, 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register supporting the right of health providers to exercise their moral convictions in the workplace. This rule addresses action taken by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) several months ago, when the ABOG issued guidelines that could shape board certification requirements and requite a doctor to perform abortions in order to receive board certification. Put simply, medical practitioners could potentially lose their board certifications if they fail to participate in abortion referrals and related activities.

"The HHS proposal simply reiterates three federal laws already in existence that protect medical facilities and practitioners' freedom of choice: the Church Amendments, the Public Health Service Act and the Weldon Amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. This proposed rule does not coerce the medical community into refusing treatment; it simply protects those in the medical community from discriminatory practices.

"With tens of millions of our fellow citizens, I have been blessed to share with my wife in the miracle of life. As the father of six children and grandfather of seven, I cannot imagine what an individual who has also witnessed this miracle feels when they are forced, against their convictions, to perform a procedure that ends that precious, little life.

"I am unequivocally committed to protecting the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death. Moreover, as a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus, I believe that hospitals and other health care providers have the right to choose not to be involved in killing the unborn. During my 16 years in the Idaho State legislature, I fought tirelessly for measures to protect the unborn, and I in my nearly two years in Congress I have voted 100 percent pro-life. I always will.

"Yet in addition to deeply held convictions about the sanctity of personhood, from conception to natural death, this is an issue of conscience: No one in our country should be forced by law to perform actions that violate his or her conscientious beliefs. Just as our military respects beliefs about life and death held by many of our fellow citizens and therefore makes allowance for conscientious objectors, so must our medical community make allowance for those of its members who cannot provide health care in good conscience if they are compelled to in any way participate in abortion-related services.
In a letter written in 1809, Thomas Jefferson remarked, "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries" (letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809). We would jettison this wise counsel to the peril of all our rights and liberties.

"I support the proposed HHS rule strongly and urge its adoption as federal law."

Tell me: which of the following do you think was better ? The Democrats' double-standards are showing.

And can you guess who said these lines?

Star Parker - CURE

This is not the first time that Blacks have to choose between their color or Christ. That's what it really comes down to. And now, visibly, they have to choose between their color or Christ, because the representation of the left party has always been to destroy life, destroy life in the womb. In fact, the Democrats strengthened their death language in the last convention. When you look at Back abortion rates now, for every two pregnancies one is aborted, blacks should be alarmed, they should be up in-arms, but, race politics has been going on for so long, and Blacks have been so indoctrinated to believe race politics, that when questions of life come up they put them second third or fourth of their concerns and allow for this holocaust to continue.

Click here to view the video at ProLifeNews.tv

By Marsha West

Serious questions have been raised about when life begins. Some say life begins at the moment of conception. Others question that a new life is created at the very moment of conception, but they can set no definite time between conception and birth as the point when life begins. If you're not sure when a human person is formed, why not err on the side of life? "To err is human, to repent divine; to persist devilish," wrote Benjamin Franklin. According to Dictionary.com "devilish" means, amoung other things, "showing the cunning or ingenuity or wickedness typical of a devil; devilish schemes; the cold calculation and diabolic art of some statesmen."

The last definition of devilish brings to mind Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent appearance on "Meet the Press" when she was asked by Tom Brokaw what she would tell Sen. Obama if he were to come to her and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" His reason for raising the question was that Pastor Rick Warren asked Presidential hopeful Barack Obama when life begins. "It is above my pay grade," said the artful dodger. What Warren should have asked Obama is "Why do you condone the deliberate killing of unborn babies who miraculously survive abortions?" It would have been a fair question. When Obama was an Illinois state senator, "he spoke against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003." [1]

Pelosi's replied to Brokaw's query with more than 6 words:

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator -- St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose." (Entire transcript here...footnote 2)

Pelosi's comments elicited statements from Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Doctrine:

"In the course of a 'Meet the Press' interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

"These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life."[3]

Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl issued a statement of his own. He said that since the first century the Church has decried the moral evil of abortion. The Church's teaching "has not changed and remains unchangeable," said Wuerl.

Bottom line: The Catholic Church holds that human life begins upon fertilization. Moreover, abortion is morally evil as it is the taking of a human life. The Catholic Church's teaching has not and will not change. Nancy Pelosi knows what her Church believes, and she chose to lie to the public about it.

When Sen. Joe Biden appeared on "Meet the Press," Tom Brokaw addressed the issue of when life begins with him. He prefaced his question by reiterating what advice the Speaker offered Obama. He then read a portion of Edward Cardinal Egan of New York's harsh words regarding Pelosi's comments. "Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." Brokaw then asked Biden, another ardent, practicing Roman Catholic: "If Sen. Obama comes to you and asks when life begins, what would you say to him?" Biden came up with this problematic response:

The National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson provided more details about Barack Obama's record:

As the legislative director for National Right to Life, I can provide some additional details regarding Barack Obama's appalling record on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). This is just a summary. A detailed count-counterpoint paper refuting Obama's disinformation on this issue -- including links to the actual bills at issue (each bill is only three sentences long), and other primary documents --is found here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

As an Illinois state senator, from 2001-2003, Obama led the opposition to the Illinois BAIPA. The bill, only three sentences long, simply recognized any infant who was completely expelled from the mother, and alive, as a legal person. Obama was the chairman who presided over a March 13, 2003 committee meeting at which he killed an amended version of the bill that was virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that had been enacted the previous year without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (The complete text appears at the bottom of this posting.) From 2004 until a few weeks ago, Obama insisted falsely that the state and federal bills were very different, a claim swallowed unskeptically by some protective Chicago newspapers (which the Obama operation then cited for years as "proof" of the claim).

On August 11, 2008, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released recently uncovered documents that proved that Obama had misrepresented the state bill. When Obama was asked about our assertion in a televised interview on August 16, 2008, he said (three times) that we were "lying." After an investigation, Annenberg's independent FactCheck.org concluded: "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act]."

So why did Obama oppose the BAIPA, and why he so persistently misrepresent the content of the bill?

Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed this bill because he believed it was unconstitutional to define a "previable fetus" to be a legal person ? even though the bill only applied if the baby had achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother," and was alive.

I am a critic of Roe v. Wade -- but even among persons who defend Roe v. Wade, most consider that ruling to confer a right to terminate the lives of unborn humans inside the womb, and do not believe that it diminishes the legal status of a baby who is fully born. (Indeed, a bill virtually identical to the one that Obama opposed passed the U.S. Senate 98-0.) Yet, there really are some people who believe that Roe v. Wade goes further, and requires that a "previable fetus" (Obama's term) who is the subject of an abortion must remain classified as a non-person no matter where that "previable fetus" is located. In this vision, the so-called "previable fetus" who happens to be outside the mother is still in the process of being aborted, and that entire process (which Obama regards as constitutionally protected) will end only with the death of the newborn. By his actions and his explanations of those actions, Barack Obama showed himself to be among those who hold this expansive vision of the "right to abortion." In Obama's view, to declare the fully born and living but "previable" human to be a legal person does indeed interfere with "abortion" and does indeed conflict with the full and proper application of "Roe v. Wade."

Thus, in Obama's view, even a live birth is not enough to confer "human rights," in the abortion context at least. If not then, when? At the August 16, 2008, Saddleback Forum, when Pastor Rick Warren asked Sen. Obama, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?", Obama responded that "answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." In a Sept. 7 interview, Obama further explained that it was a "theological question."

And not apologetic in the least.

The way I see it, if you don't start with a respect for human life - if you think babies are disposable - then your talk of caring for the "least of these" is but a sounding gong. If you think unplanned babies are a punishment - (See Obama wouldn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby) - then you cannot possibly be a leader I could trust.

~~~HT to Jen for highlighting the video on her blog.~~~~~

And finally, as many other bloggers are doing, I'm adding this button to my sidebar:

Maybe if enough of us ask, Obama will tell us how he can use this Bible verse to promote his candidacy in spite of the fact that even beyond his stellar pro-abortion record, he defended the practice of botched-abortion infanticide while serving in the Illinois State Senate.

Weren't those terribly unwanted babies - many of whom had Down syndrome - really those Jesus would have included when he referred to the "least of these?"

If you want to add the button - and spread the word - link up at Mama Says.

It was very interesting to hear from the lips of Michelle Obama a couple of months ago on the View state that she thought people were not used to dealing with strong women. I guess it depends on what she meant by strong.To liberal feminists strong means strong arming your man out of his rightful place in marriage and family, looking and acting aggressive and apparently scowling. For an educated person, so called, it seems she doesn't know about the many courageous women that have contributed to society. Just to name a few I am sure Ms.Obama has heard about: Mother Teresa, Margaret Thatcher, Condi Rice, Benezir Bhutto.

Liberal feminists have for the past 40 years hijacked the women's movement started by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B.Anthony and others and have created the horror show it is today. The real women's movement fought for equal rights under the law in regards to children, property and the right to vote. They all spoke out agains abortion and worked to support women in their role as wives and mother. Today, the lib fems want society to believe that you are not a real women unless you are willing to kill your children, belittle your husband, and put the children you allowed to live, second to your professional ambitions. This is their formula that will lead to the nirvana of women's true liberation.

Thank God for Sarah Palin!! She has taken the lib fem argument and stomped on it with just being who she is. The thing the lib fems do not understand is that most of women in American society identify with Sarah Palin. Conservative women are the sleeping giant in this country as Tom Delay describes it and are now going to be heard.

The more the lib fems defend their position and attack Sarah Palin and conservative women they kick their own followers in the face. They have been propagating the lie for 35 years that you can have it all, you can be the man, you can have the power, but only if you sign off on the "willing to kill" clause in their membership agreement. Suddenly they are now saying that it's not true, women cannot have career,husband,family, it is just to much for them to handle. It's amazing what a difference a day can make.

In newly released video clip, abortion survivor Gianna Jesson questions Barack Obama for his active opposition to legislation that could protect babies who survive an abortion attempt. Jill Stanek reports:

We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine Roe. Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with legalized abortion?

Dakota Voice has more.

Powerful:

In this powerful ad sponsored by BornAliveTruth.org, abortion survivor Gianna Jesson questions Barack Obama for his active opposition as state senator to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Born Alive was introduced to stop IL hospitals from leaving babies who survived their abortions in soiled utility rooms to die.

Gianna was aborted 31 years ago by a saline abortion procedure.

Gianna testified for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 and attended the presidential bill signing in 2002.

Born Alive passed on the federal level overwhelmingly. The abortion group NARAL even expressed neutrality on the bill, which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate 98-0.

Barack Obama is such an abortion extremist, he has positioned himself to the left of the entire U.S. Senate and NARAL.

If it were up to Obama, Gianna would not be here today.

Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.

How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted." (Continue reading)

Related videos: Obama's record on infanticide and abortion...

HT - RedState, Posted: Hyscience

NY and other Dem States are possibly in play? Can McCain win in these states? He can if you help distribute anti-Obama fliers at your local Churches starting this weekend and into November.

Why will these fliers make a difference? Polls show that as the faithful learn about Obama's record on abortion and infanticide, their support for him drops!

The information in these fliers will make a tremendous difference - and could be the deciding factor in close races across the country, even in NY!

Here's how to get involved today - sign up at prolifewitness.com, download the fliers below and get them printed/copied, make some banners and posters, and then visit your local houses of worship this weekend.

Banners

Simple banners are very effective in getting your message across.  They are simple to make - all you need are some rolls of wide craft paper, sketching rolls, or very large poster rolls, tempura paints (they are great for making banners),  and a little bit of time. It's important to plan on using banners in areas where parking lots are inaccessible, and as a backup plan if you are [wrongfully] forced from the parking lots

Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust use a home made banner at the Saddleback civil forum, where Rick Warren interviewed Sens. Obama and McCain.

Fliers

Note, the fliers on this page can be downloaded and copies can be ordered online at the Staples.com online copy center - and then pick them up when they are finished.  You can also bring them into Staples or your local printer or copy center. 

Flier for Catholics

 An Appeal to American Catholics Regarding the 2008 Presidential Elections - Produced by the Pro-life Political Action Committee of S.E. Pennsylvania, this flyer address the issue of voting for Obama from a Catholic perspective. (Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view, but not for submitting to Staples..)

Flier for All Denominations

Barak Obama - Change We Can Believe In?  Produced by the Pro-Life Union of S.E. Pennsylvania, this flyer addresses Obama's support of gay marriage, infanticide, abortion, and partial birth abortion.

Voters' Guide

Where do the Candidates Stand on Key Issues? Produced by Priests for Life.  An excellent, 501c3/Church friendly, non-partisan guide to the positions of the 2008 Presidential Candidates on various issues of concern to the electorate.  Note, the files are very large, and for quicker viewing click here.  To download the very large source file for professional printing, click here, or for the smaller file for printing, click here.

Abortion survivor Gianna Jessen contrasts her struggle for life as a newborn with Barack Obama's four votes opposing protections for babies born from failed abortions

Washington, DC - For the first time ever, an abortion survivor is featured in a new advertisement released today which takes issue with Senator Obama's four votes against born alive protections when he was an Illinois state senator. The 30-second spot showcases Gianna Jessen, who explains to viewers that she survived an abortion attempt 31 years ago. Jessen then highlights Barack Obama's four votes against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Defined Act, and asks him to support protections for infants who, like her, are born alive from failed abortion attempts.

Legislation identical to the proposed Illinois law was passed by the U.S. Senate (before Obama became a US Senator) by a vote of 98-0. This included even the most adamant pro-choice Senators.

"If Senator Barack Obama's position against born alive protections were in place when I was born, I would not be here today. Senator Obama had the opportunity four times to vote to protect infants born from failed abortions and he chose not to. By voting against these protections, he was basically denying these living, breathing babies their most basic human right," Jessen said.

In the ad, available online at www.BornAliveTruth.org, Jessen asks:

"Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I'm a survivor, as are many others...but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born alive infant protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live."

"I want people to understand that there are babies born from failed abortions. No matter how they came to us, these babies are living and breathing human beings and deserve the same protections as the rest of us. Unfortunately, Barack Obama voted four times against affording these babies their most basic human right. I don't trust Senator Obama on this issue given he voted against these protections four times as a state Senator. Just as abuse victims or rape victims share their stories to educate the public, fight for the common good and hope that as a result politicians do what's right, I felt it was important to come forward and give these new born babies a voice," Jessen concluded.

"I think the jury is still out on young evangelicals," said Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant magazine, an influential publication for this group. "Both parties have the opportunity to address issues of deep concern for this voting bloc."

Yet Strang said he's "more undecided than ever." He said he was encouraged by Democratic pledges to reduce the number of abortions, but now worries the party is using abortion as a wedge issue by running ads sharply contrasting Palin and Obama on abortion rights...

If this AP story is accurate in its description, then Strang turns out to be just another sad example of how weak, compromising and unfaithful is the "emergent church" movement. After all, the Bible is clear and unequivocal about the monstrous sin which is abortion. And Barack Obama and the Democrat party are (through their actions) equally clear and unequivocal about supporting and promoting abortion, even going so far as opposing informed consent laws, parental consent laws, abstinence-based education, pro-life pregnancy centers, sidewalk counseling, conscience laws, and so on.

But Strang can't make up his mind?

In America we are very good at honoring people and events, no matter if they have had a positive or negative impact on our country. It's very commendable to have museums, memorials, and special holidays for these occurrences. We have several monuments for our founding fathers and other Americans that have helped shape America. Every September 11 we hold memorial events for the nearly 3,000 killed in the terrorists attacks. America has a very powerful tribute to the 58,000 killed in the Vietnam War with the Wall in Washington, D.C. and other memorials throughout the United States. The World War II Memorial is now built in Washington D.C. to honor those who served, plus the 417,000 Americans killed in the war. We have Holocaust museums in many communities that display the horrors of this evil that killed approximately six million Jews.

What do we have for the approximately 50 million babies killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973? NOTHING. Why? I see a few reasons for this. So many people have their views shaped by the mainstream media which, of course, never even has run one story about the horror of abortion. On the rare occasion they do run any story about the subject, it almost always displays the pro-life view in a bad light. So for quite a few Americans, it's the old adage "out of sight, out of mind." Many still have the preconceived notion that if the press isn't covering it, then it must not be newsworthy.

At just 6 weeks, the fetus is small but everything that is present in an adult human is now present in the unborn child. By 16 weeks the baby begins sucking and swallows bits of amniotic fluid. Fingerprints which individualize each human being have now developed on the tiny fingers.

The following was sent to us by the American Life League:

Washington, D.C. (12 September 2008) - Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa is using a webcam to give the dangerous RU-486 drug, which is used to induce chemical abortions, to walk-in patients, reports Iowa Right to Life.

Women come for the chemical abortion and instead of consulting an abortionist face-to-face, they face a screen connected to a person somewhere else in the state via web cameras.

In addition, Planned Parenthood does not follow FDA Protocol for RU-486. Planned Parenthood gives women a single RU-486 pill, instead of the three recommended by the FDA. Then, the dosage of the less expensive Misoprostol, which expels the baby, is increased.

Additionally, one of the FDA-recommended doctor's visits is cut out of the process.

"This is despicable," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Not only is this abortion chain murdering innocent preborn children, but they are putting the lives of the mothers in serious danger. Planned Parenthood doesn't care about women's health at all."

The chemical abortion has been shown to be responsible for over 600 adverse affects and is the direct cause of at least thirteen deaths since its introduction to the western world, according to Dr. John Willke of Life Issues Institute.

"It is unbelievable that people still believe the lie that Planned Parenthood cares about women." Brown said. "This organization has its doctors administering a seriously dangerous drug regime with no face-to-face interaction with a doctor and is covering up the dangers of RU-486. It's a money-mongering business that is only too happy to cut back doctor-patient time in a dangerous chemical abortion to save money."

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

American Life League: Iowa Planned Parenthood Gives Abortion Cocktail (12 Sept. 2008)

Iowa Right to Life has the details.

A Running List for Dems, GOPers and Independents/Others Alike:
Cheat-charts, quick (and some not-so-quick) facts, myths debunked but still propagated by some, whose executive experience, earmarks or "Bush-supporting" polices are better or worse than whose, Chris Matthews' deer-in-headlights moment, Gender-Bendering, how many (and how many women) watched JM, BO, SP, JB, HC...links galore.

A work in progress.

On ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, Barack Obama tried to undo the damage he inflicted on himself at the Aug. 16 Saddleback Showdown with his now infamous "above my pay grade" response to Rick Warren's question, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

But Obama hadn't learned. He tried once again to redirect the clearly constitutionally based question into something esoteric and religious, and therefore unsolvable:

Obama: "I mean, what I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into..."

But Warren clearly had not asked, "When does a baby get a soul?"...

And what did Obama mean by....

Continue reading my column, "Obama digs deeper on 'pay grade' gaffe," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Perhaps it is my simple faith in the basic decency of people that accounts for my generally optimistic view of the world. Yes, I know man is fallen and prone to sin. Yes, I realize that there will never be heaven on earth and that every day affords each of us an opportunity to grow in the grace of God. That having been said, why is it that among those who should be pleased with the choice of Governor Palin, a strongly pro-life candidate who chose life for her most recent child, do I find rancor and bitterness and a doomsday mentality?

Is it because their old enemy John McCain has turned out to be a fairly smart politician? Or is it perhaps that he has actually listened to those who have advised him to choose someone that could relate to the base?

How many times does he have to state it for the record that he is pro-life? How many times does he have to promise to select judges like Roberts and Alito? How many times does he have to point out his 26 year record of pro-life votes?

McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin has energised the Republican Party in a way that I have never in my 36 years of political life ever seen. She has excited people who were glum about this election. She has reminded women that they do not have not settle for warmed over dried out pro-abortion feminism to put a woman in the White House or at least next door. She has shown a real compassion for for children in a way that dismisses the liberal village approach to that corner. She is sharp and if you do not believe me, then watch her on some of the interviews this past spring.

For all the noise surrounding John McCain, I see someone who truly believes that he is following a special call this time. His love of country is genuine. He is as Peggy Noonan has characterized from the "old America." As I have watched him, I have noticed a difference in the way he carries himself. There is a "something" that has given me the opinion that he is really listening to those of us who also care about this country.

The stakes are very high. This is not some lab experiment where we have more than one chance to get it right. The election of a Democrat who favors abortion, who wants to promote abortion, who calls pregnancy a punishment, who cannot with an honest face tell us when a baby gets human rights, who misrepresented his position on the infanticide bill while in the State senate in Illinois, who has promised planned Parenthood that the first bill he wants to sing into law is the Freedom of Choice Act which would nullify all state law restrictions on abortion and who wants tax payer funded abortion through universal health care, would be a disaster for the children and their mothers.

So please do not waste your vote on a third party candidate. Ask these third party candidates why they have not been building up their constituencies over the last four years. Ask them why they want to see Barack Obama win the White House. Ask them to justify having the Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches of government. Ask them to remember the Carter days.

Then remember what I have said about this campaign all along.

McCain is pro-life. (the stem cell issue is, thanks to science, yesterday's news and he knows it and supports adult stem cell research).

McCain will select pro-life judges. Please remember if he is elected and the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary want to play games, he will not compromise with those former colleagues, he will pick some brother senator like a John Cornyn from Texas who is well respected by his colleagues. He is not going to let them define him or control him.

McCain wants Roe v. Wade reversed. He has repeatedly stated that he wants Roe reversed. He has told me numerous times that it is a terrible decision. He recently said it during an interview the other day.

McCain wants to improve the prospects for adopting children. Think about it. There are over 2 million couples certified to adopt and over 1 million abortions each year. McCain has an adopted daughter. He and his wife Cindy will be advocates to promote adoption over abortion. With fellows like Senator Sam Brownback to assist, we could create an environment that welcomes children as opposed to disposing of them.

McCain wants to shrink the size of government and reduce wasteful spending. What is more wasteful than giving Planned Parenthood money for its sickening programs. A McCain-Palin Administration could shut off the wasteful spending and seriously cripple Planned Parenthood.

I realize that setting aside old grudges is difficult. Yet for the sake of the unborn children I would hope that we all could agree to set aside differences and work to elect McCain-Palin and defeat the pro-abortionists Obama and Biden.

Cross-posted: Jacubczyk on Life

By Vincent Chia

An Introduction to Personhood

A myriad of ethical problems is contingent upon the definition or understanding of what constitutes a person. From an embryological or biological point of view, there is no doubt that human life begins at conception.(1) However, following the footsteps of John Locke, some ethicists make a distinction between a human being and a human person. (2) According to Locke, "person" and "human" are distinct categories. That is, not all humans are persons, and perhaps not all persons are human. Locke defined a person as, "A thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places." It seems that Locke is furnishing us with a functional definition of personhood, which describes a person as one who is capable of rationality and self-consciousness.

Similar functional definitions of personhood are likewise described by contemporary ethicists and moral philosophers. Some had argued that the early detection of fetal brain waves is the key to defining the beginning of personhood, which is positioned roughly at 40 to 43 days gestation. (3) Still others define a person as a being who can engage in cognitive acts such as sophisticated communication, consciousness, reasoning or the ability to solve complex problems, self-motivated activity, and having a self-concept plus self-awareness. (4) Apparently, this would place the unborn child outside the class of persons, and would even justify infanticide. L. W. Sumner, however, argues that the fetus is not a person until it is sentient and possesses the ability to feel and sense as a conscious being. This generally occurs during the middle of the second trimester of pregnancy, and undeniably by the end of that trimester. (5)

While the criteria for personhood varies from ethicist to ethicist, functional definitions for personhood share a common denominator: each definition states that if and only if an organism functions in a particular manner as defined by the criterion of personhood, we are otherwise not warranted to call that organism a person. In other words, unless the fetus (be it born or unborn) acquires a set of functions - be it sentience, consciousness or brain waves - it is not entitled to be called a person. These ethicists do not deny that fetuses or embryos are alive and are human beings, but they reject the claim that fetuses or embryos are persons according to some arbitrary criteria.Thus, fetuses and embryos are denied moral status.

Some Problems of Functional Definitions for Personhood

Let us arbitrarily take a personhood criterion for the purpose of our discussion here. For example, Mary Anne Warren defines a person as a being who can engage in cognitive acts such as sophisticated communication, consciousness, solving complex problems or the ability to reason, self-motivated activity, and having a self-concept. (6)

In her essay, Warren does not argue that each of her five conditions is individually sufficient for personhood. (7) She thinks that some of them may be, and that the conjunction of these three - consciousness, reasoning, and self-motivated activity - is probably sufficient for personhood. In other words, it is probably true that if a being is conscious, able to reason, and engages in self-motivated activity, then that being is a person. The fulfillment of all three of these conditions is sufficient for being a person.

It must be noted that Warren does not maintain that any of her five conditions is individually necessary. (8) But she does insist that the disjunction of the five conditions is necessary; that is, a necessary condition for personhood is that something satisfy at least one of these five conditions. She argues that if none of these five conditions is true of something, then that being is not a person. This criterion is controversial at best, as we would discover below.

Despite John McCain's addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, pro-life conservatives ought to be leery (remember this?). My prior statement is often met with a dialog about the dismal Democratic alternative and a discussion about judges.

Today Ron Paul extended his support to a field of third-party alternatives including pro-life Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. Paul said,

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

[snip]

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates--Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

The profound lack of substance in the political debates topping our headlines indicates Americans, in general, have stopped using their minds and are well down the road to serfdom. While pundits debate Barack Obama's latest gaffe, reporters flock to Matt Damon, and analysts debate Sarah Palin's glasses, the lives of Americans are being consumed through an every rising collectivism supported by both parties and our children are being sacrificed at the alter of abortion.

Consider the gravity of using a pig innuendo versus nominating activist Supreme Court judges, supporting child killing in the womb and espousing Marxist dogma. Which is more important and which receives the greater indignations?

Others:

The entire American system is at its worst, and Christian Conservatives have little to say. - Chalcedon Blog

Update: The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it's more so than ever. Ron Paul

Here's more.

By Cheryl Sullenger

Wichita, Kansas - While Mondays are not full-blown abortions days at George Tiller's Women's Health Care Services, they can be eventful days nonetheless for volunteers who maintain vigil outside the infamous late-term abortion mill.

Last Monday, the morning started with the stench of burning babies. Tiller operates a full-sized crematorium, like the ones used by funeral home. All the babies aborted there are incinerated on site. I arrived after the ash had dissipated, but while the stench was still clinging in the air. It is an unforgettable acrid smell that seems to permeate even the clothing. While sometimes Tiller's staff intentionally fires up the incinerator to discourage pro-lifers, it only serves to strengthen our resolve.

The Kansas Coalition for Life manages the schedule of volunteers that man the gate outside Tiller's abortion clinic every hour they are open. Among the volunteers is experienced sidewalk counselor, Jennifer McCoy, who also networks with Operation Rescue. We partner with the KCFL, maintaining a daily presence at Tiller's mill with the Truth Truck and providing other resources. This day, Jennifer tells me that she intercepted a 17-year old girl and her mom who had come from New Mexico for a late-term abortion. Out-of-towners usually come on Mondays to get their paperwork started for their abortions, which begin on Tuesday.

The girl, who we will call "C." was 27 weeks pregnant. Jennifer successfully redirected them to Choices Medical Center, a pro-life clinic directly next door to Tiller's abortion mill. While other duties called me away, Jennifer faithfully waited for four hours to speak with the women after their visit to Choices. Thankfully, "C." and her mom assured Jennifer that the C. would keep her baby and that they would be returning home the next day.

While Jennifer was waiting for C. to finish her visit to Choices, a young mother named Jillian stopped by with two young children in tow. It seems that Jillian had come to Tiller's clinic for an abortion about two years ago, but was, like C., intercepted by pro-lifers at the clinic entrance. Jillian chose life for her son, Zachary, and wanted to come back and thank those who had helped her.

"Don't ever think that what you are doing is in vain," a grateful Jillian told Jennifer.

Zachary is the apple of his mom's eye, and has been recently been joined in the family by a new little sister. He is a happy little guy with a thick mop of brown hair and an irresistible smile. It is unthinkable to imagine what could have been. . .what almost was.

Washington, D.C. (10 September 2008) - Heart attack victim Janet Rivera, who, like Terri Schiavo, was denied food and water for 11 days in July, was saved from the specter death by starvation Sep. 9 when her brother was named her permanent conservator.

"Praise God, this woman was snatched from such an excruciating death," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "Janet was spared the fate of Terri Schiavo, but still we hope this case exposes the threat that hangs over us all - government euthanasia for the sick, elderly and disabled."

The victory marks the final win for the Rivera family who has fought unceasingly for her life since she was placed in the hands of Fresno, California government officials in June. Rivera's public guardian ordered her death by starvation in July and had her feeding tube removed.

Public outcry ensued and Rivera's feeding tube was reinserted.

The 46-year-old woman suffered a heart attack in 2006. According to Judge Debra Kazanjian, Rivera's husband, Jesus Rivera, relinquished custody as he was unable to provide for Rivera's medical care. When doctors indicated Rivera might never recover, the public guardian ordered her feeding tube removed.

Rivera's brother Michael Dancoff plans to take his sister back to her San Francisco family where he hopes she will awaken and recover.

"We hope this case will shed light on the other victims of government abuse. Janet's case is not an isolated incident. Sick people all over the country are in serious danger of being denied their basic needs under the guise of compassion," Brown said. "None of us should feel safe while our right to food and water, ordinary care, is viciously trampled on. No one should die by starvation."

Yes I'm a Black man, and I won't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Today I saw on the Internet an editorial cartoon that was originally published in the Chicago Sun-Times. It had God, Senator Obama, and a baby. God was touching the baby's forefinger. Obama stands behind the baby and holds a sign that says "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION." Obama screams at God: "YOU KEEP OUT OF THIS!" Suddenly everything made sense to me, maybe not by words to God, but by actions -- actions which speak much louder than words. By his actions Obama says a lot, both to God and to Christians.

In a Human Events article "Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL" by Amanda B. Carpenter, December 26. 2006, she writes:

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

"Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

"When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, 'Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose.'

"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted 'present.' At the second he voted 'no.'

"The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

"Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

"Stanek told me her testimony 'did not faze' Obama.

"In the second hearing, Stanek said, 'I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!'

"'And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all,' she said.

"At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being 'very clear and forthright,' but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested 'doctors really don't care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.' He told her, 'That may be your assessment, and I don't see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that.'"

Can God bless infanticide? Does God bless infanticide? Is it "Suffer the little children" or "Let the little children suffer"? Which one did Jesus Christ say? I forget. Help me out with that one.

On the subject of Jesus, I saw another article on World Net Daily called "Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama" in which the above-mentioned nurse Jill Stanek wrote: "In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the 'alarming news' that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

(What a lovely picture that makes. What did I say about "let the little children suffer"?)

"Michelle called partial-birth abortion 'a legitimate medical procedure,' and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against 'cynical ploy[s]' to stop it?"

Stanek continues: "As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

"Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

"BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to 'choose' stopped at her baby's delivery.

"The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

"But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left."

That was a good thing.

The article "Obama's Abortion Extremism" in the April 2, 2008 edition of the Washington Post says:

"But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called 'too close to infanticide.' Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be 'punished with a baby' because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life."

It is bad enough that Obama is "pro-choice," which is a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Ever since 1973, seventeen million Black babies have been destroyed in the womb and disposed of. In 1977, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. said that abortion is "genocide against the Black race." (FYI: Go to www.blackgenocide.org.) In 1984, he flip-flopped on that issue for some reason.

Hey i just got this fwd from a buddy of mine... thought it's worth sharing, especially for all those still in school.

Students for Life (this is where you can watch Obama's "above my paygrade" video too)

Did you know that this week is the most critical time in the lives of millions of young people?

This week, millions of college students will return to their campuses. And they will be bombarded with pro-abortion messages from Planned Parenthood, professors, and peers.

• Did you know that the majority of abortions, 45%, are performed on college-aged women?


• Did you know that a 1996 Gallup Poll found that 47% of women are pro-life when they enter college and 4 years later, at graduation, 73% are pro-choice? In 4 years, the pro-life movement lost 20% of its' women supporters.

-B.H.

Australians are outraged and disgusted because they were told about partial birth abortion. And they should be angry. In fact, so angry that they reject legalizing abortion in Victoria.

The The Tell The Truth Coalition had reason for distributing the "offensive" pamphlets:

The Victorian Government is considering the removal of all legal protection for children up until the moment of birth!

Once this is made law it will:

• Legalise ALL abortions until the moment of birth.


• Punish medical staff who refuse to co-operate in an abortion.


• Deny legal protection to women being coerced to have an abortion.


• Allow violent offenders to end the life of an unborn child without murder or manslaughter charges.

Say NO to legalising abortion in Victoria! Contact your local member of parliament today. Click here to find your local member.

In this video, Pastor Caesar Lafleur is sending a Pro-Life mesaage to Pastor's around the world, encouraging them to get involved with anti-abortion / Pro-Life issues, and to speak the truth to their congregations.

Click here to continue reading and to view the video at ProLifeUnity.com

... but the "pig" remark is not the reason why. Barack Obama is the most liberal representative in the Senate, espouses a socialistic agenda, supports research that destroys human embryos, is an abortion rights activist, promises to put in place activist Supreme court justices (who base their rulings on their feelings rather than objective standards) and blocked an anti-infanticide bill. Do you really think the innuendo surrounding the "lipstick on a pig" statement deserves any press at all?

Update: I'm relenting my position on the lipstick pig story. The meltdown is of interest:

I think Obama's choice of words was unbelievably stupid (as it so very often is when he's not chained to a teleprompter), and I certainly think both he and Biden have completely lost their cool because of Palin and are getting hysterical--Biden's ugly reference to Palin's Down syndrome child and stem cell research today is one example. But did he set out to call Palin (or McCain) names? I think it's a bad gaffe, not an attack.

K-Lo - Is it worth out time?

in the blogosphere. My post about the hot mike elicited this comment from some faceless pro-abort on another site. (Yes, the second part was all caps and in red, no less.)

"Pro-life for the unborn, pro-death for the living (in some faraway land for bonus points!).

WERE IT UP TO SARAH PALIN,
A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL,
PREGNANT BECAUSE HER DADDY RAPED HER,
MUST BEAR THE CHILD OF HER FATHER."

This was my reply:

Yes, I believe that there are thugs in this world who would slaughter me and my family just for my difference in religion. I also feel that the lives of the majority of Iraqis are worth protecting from those thugs -- you see, I don't discriminate just because I can't see someone or haven't met them.

The same is true of the child of that 13-year-old rape victim. Why should that young woman be shamed into believing that there is something wrong with her child? She and her child are innocent victims of a horrendous act.

Why should she have her child ripped from her just because of the circumstances of how that innocent one entered this world? It is the rapist who should be ashamed and scorned and held accountable.

The young woman and her child should be embraced, told that they have done nothing wrong and that they both can hold their heads high.

A member of FFL, who was the product of a rape, once said: I have a right to be here.

And her mother said: She was the only good thing that came out of that horrible experience.

Why do we assume that young women are too weak to stand up for themselves and their children? When will society stop acting as though they couldn't possibly get through even the most difficult of times? If they need our love and support, we should be there for them -- not just make them feel that "of course, it's what you're expected to do."

Rape victims who abort have said they feel like they were violated twice. First by their rapist, and then by an abortionist. Both times being forced to do something they never would have chosen to do.

There are two other maddening aspects: First is that it is often the abuser who forces the abortion. Victims of incest are dragged to clinics by their abusers to destroy the "evidence."

Second, the workers at the clinics stand by and don't report what is obviously child abuse. Letting these youngest victims fall through the cracks -- rationalizing that they are merely young women who made the "mature decision" to have sex -- as if *any* 13-year-old should be having sex -- all because the sacred rite of abortion should never be questioned...

Yeah, that Sarah Palin. She believes in the value of all young women and their children. How dare she.

Judge Judy was on the view today. Sitting in the other room, I heard her talking about embryonic stem cell research and quickly jumped up to hear what she had to say to the gaggle of pro-abortion geese. Referring to Sen. Joe Biden, his Catholic faith, and his opinion on the subject, she said "I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, but I shouldn't impose my belief on everybody else".

Click here to continue reading at ProLifeUnity.com

Ann Dunham Soetoro was born November 29, 1942. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961.

Typical human gestation (from conception to labor) is approximately 280 days. The Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence states that "The human gestation period--the period of time between conception and labor--is approximately forty weeks (280 days), measured from the first day of the mother's last menstrual period."

From October 29, 1960, to and including August 4, 1961, it is 280 days from the start date to the end date, end date included or 9 months, 7 days.

Obama's mother, then, conceived him on or around October 29, 1960, when she was 17 years old:

From November 29, 1942 to and including Saturday, October 29, 1960, is 17 years, 11 months, 1 day.

The level of hypocrisy among pro-"choice" liberals just rose another notch.

Cross-posted on Abortion Pundit

Check them out.

When I was 19, I totally bought into the rhetoric of the women's movement. According to their message, 'pro woman' means pro abortion. There was also a loud and clear message that you couldn't be pro woman if you were pro life. I also believed that abortion was my total right and would empower me by freeing me up to pursue more 'lofty goals', such as being anything else but a mother. When I had my abortion at 19, I was totally caught off guard with my feelings of guilt, regret and mainly powerlessness. In my deep depression I felt alone and really honestly believed I was the only pro woman post abortive woman to start to believe that my so-called SISTERS like Gloria Steinem and Margaret Sanger were not looking out for my best interests after all. Abortion is not pro woman and indeed not liberating. This past week, Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed piece regarding Sarah Palin called "Palin; Wrong Woman.." In the piece she says the following regarding Sarah Palin:

"She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality."

Earlier this week we commented on Senator Joe Biden's public statement which reveals he believes that life begins at conception but is unwilling to impose his personal belief on others. Albert Mohler calls this stand horrifying:

Sen. Biden may have been attempting to "walk the line" politically, but a closer look at his actual argument is truly horrifying.

Sen. Biden says, and we must take him at his word, that he accepts as a matter of faith that human life begins at conception. But, he argues, he is perfectly willing to support a woman's right to choose to end that human life.

The killing of human life is called homicide. Murder is the willful taking of a human life. The senator has here stated that he believes abortion to be homicide, but he defends a woman's right to kill the unborn human life within her because he would not impose his beliefs about human life (and thus about homicide) on others.

In other words, if we take Sen. Biden seriously, he would defer to others who believe otherwise when it comes to the law.

Disposable people and those who choose to honor and save them.

Are we our "brother's keeper" and what does it mean? To what lengths are we as a people willing to sacrifice to save the "least of these"?

When it comes to Governor Palin and Senator Obama the answer could not be any clearer. One is willing to sacrifice and one is not...one values the tiniest of heartbeats and one does not. You could say their values are separated by the ability to hear the voice of a beating heart.

I have come to observe, for the most part, that we live in a disposable society, where the intrinsic value of human life seems to have lost its way. In sharp contrast, I have personally spent the last several years of my life writing to the beauty of how our Creator--our Father in Heaven sees us...what He thinks about us. With utmost humility I have endeavored to capture His thoughts in a book chronicling What God Thinks When He Whispers Your Name to encourage those He loves; you and I.

God often speaks in a still, quiet voice I like to call a "God Whisper." It is the whispers of His heart that have brought me to reflect on the value of life as it relates to two babies with Down syndrome the forefront of the news today. And the very fact that we are discussing both; one aborted in 2005...one born in 2008 proves all are valuable and none are forgotten by God. Though years apart they are now inexorably connected by events surrounding our upcoming elections.

First there is the infamous story about a baby boy with Down syndrome who survived a botched abortion and was held by Jill Stanek in her arms for some forty-five minutes until his life ebbed away. Jill intervened as a co-worker was taking the baby to place it in Soiled Utility Room to die alone. Jill Stanek, according to her own testimony, could not bear letting the child die unattended. Out of compassion and a tender heart she held God's precious creation until he breathed his last. She carefully wrapped him in a tiny shroud and took him to the hospital morgue.

Secondly, there is the beautiful contrasting birth of a special baby boy with Down syndrome, named Trig Paxson Van Palin, born to Governor Sarah Palin and Todd Palin in April of 2008. Though Sarah and Todd felt the revelation of Trig's special needs to be "very, very challenging" they chose life and not death. They did not bend to the seemingly prevalent views shouted by the "left" and those who despise life...those who honor selfishness over sacrifice...often considering the choice to protect life as some kind of punishment.

Sarah Palin, like I, heard "God Whisper." The Anchorage Daily News reported this;

"In a letter she e-mailed to relatives and close friends Friday after giving birth, Palin wrote, "Many people will express sympathy, but you don't want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this." She wrote it in the voice of and signed it as "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

"Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome," Palin wrote.

"As for people who think a baby like Trig shouldn't even be born, look around, the governor wrote. Who is perfect or even normal?"

What did the Creator, Father God, whisper about the baby Jill Stanek held in her arms. Does He attribute the same value to an aborted a baby with Down syndrome as He does to one given the opportunity to live a productive life? I say "yes" to both questions.
As I contemplated God's great love I could hear the Father saying to one ten inch baby about the size of a hand, "I think you are perfect." In fact, He cared so much He sent someone to hold him in their embrace." Not all babies who survive failed abortion attempts are afforded the same luxury, but it does not mean they are imperfect, unwanted or uncared for. The Father loves each one and I believe their guardian angels are sent to attend them and usher them into the Father's presence.

Just as the Palin family think Trig is perfect, our Father in Heaven thinks the same about every baby in every womb regardless of whether the world thinks it is perfect or not. And the Palin family is not alone in their beliefs or sacrifice.

Take Albert and Deidre Pujols who gave birth to a child with Down syndrome named Isabella. Not only did they give birth but they started the Pujols Family Foundation to honor God and the dignity of human life. Their website is dedicated to the love, care and development of people with Down syndrome and their families. Like the Palin family, they listened to the whispers of God's heart and acted accordingly.

You see, God does not look on the outside, but instead, looks on the heart. Ask Jodi Erickson Tada if life can be productive. As for those with Down syndrome, you might want to ask them: Jane Cameron, Michael Jurogue Johnson, Bernadette Resha, and Jacob Halpin just to mention a few and see what they think about the value of life.

In the political discourse of the day words by the "left" have declared we must be our "brother's keeper," yet, they consider life disposable and do not advocate for the least of these who do not have the freedom of choice. The "left" so called champions of the downcast, the poor, minorities, illegal aliens, gay rights and even the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay fall short in protecting the unborn who have no way to speak for themselves except we speak for them.

One baby with Down syndrome held by Jill Stanek was and is still considered by the "left" unworthy of receiving medical attention when having the audacity to survive an abortion. How do we know?

Despite Barack Obama's "above my pay grade" remark, the point at which life begins is quite knowable, objective and obvious. Yuval Levin puts it this way,

But in fact, the question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before -- a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.

The ancillary question that must be answered is what is the basis for judging equality? For those of you who believe abortion is morally acceptable, why are the pre-born class of humans less valuable than those who have matured? What characteristic do they lack that should rob them of legal protection?

Here's the hot mike gaffe of the day: Shannyn Moore, a "progressive" Alaskan radio talk show host appeared on Fox News this past weekend. As Geraldo waxes poetically about Sarah Palin's pro-life feminist efforts as a mom who achieved great things while raising a large family, with one sigh Moore reveals the hypocrisy of the femi-nots.

While they say they recognize her achievements what they reveal is that they mock her, as Moore does in this post on a "progressive Alaskans" website:

http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2008/08//shannyn-moores-take-on-gov-palins.html

What the pro-abortion crowd really only acknowledges is that it was great that Sarah had a choice. Because that's what it's ALL about. Choice. At all costs.

But this one sigh crystallizes their hypocrisy. They say what they want is for women to achieve in the world of men, but if someone actually does it while raising a large family -- including a special needs child -- that flies in the face of their argument that women need to have abortions -- and especially need to be able to relieve themselves of the "burden" of a baby with Down syndrome -- in order to level the playing field.

Is this the face of feminism? Sighing with disdain when someone recounts the remarkable achievements of a woman? The majority of women in this country will answer that with their votes come November.

I wish I hadn't but today I read the twisted story of a woman who killed her one-month old child:

A woman was sentenced Monday to life in prison without the chance for parole for burning her baby daughter to death in a microwave after fighting with her boyfriend. Common Pleas Judge Mary Wiseman lashed out at 28-year-old China Arnold....

"No adjectives exist to adequately describe this heinous atrocity,"Wiseman said. "This act is shocking and utterly abhorrent for a civilized society."

A legally controlled personal choice becomes a shocking and utterly abhorrent crime in just 2-3 months? What if the child was born prematurely at only seven months?

Perhaps you see what I'm getting at. The age of the child is arbitrary and doesn't really matter. According to our government (with the exception of Barack Obama), what makes the crime abhorrent is the location of the baby. If the baby is in the womb murder is a "choice". If she is outside of the womb (no matter what age), the act is a horrific crime.

No, one month makes no difference at all. What puts a child in grave danger w/out legal protection is being inside his or her mother's womb.

The second national 40 Days for Life campaign for 2008 will take place September 24 - November 2 and will be conducted in cities from coast to coast.

In all, more than 170 communities in the United States and Canada are planning to participate. The list includes cities in 45 states and two provinces.

"The spread of 40 Days for Life is amazing," said national campaign director David Bereit. "The growth of this outreach is a reflection of the excitement that people are expressing about the many ways 40 Days for Life impacts a community. This program is being embraced by cities conducting their first 40 Days for Life and those who are planning their second, third, or - in the case of Bryan/College Station, Texas - fourth campaign."

With campaigns in both Washington, D.C. and Ottawa, Ontario, this means that 40 Days for Life will have a presence in the capitals of two nations. "We firmly believe that this campaign of prayer and fasting will have a profound impact," said Bereit.

Now is the time to get involved in one of the campaigns (click here), either in or near your home town. Each listed community has a link to local information about that city's effort. You can also see how this unique outreach has already affected many cities around the country, and learn what happens when God's people work together to do His will.

From The Guardian

5.30pm: Dad is bent over the toilet bowl with a brush in his hand and a scowl on his face. I walk up to him. "Shall I give you a hand?" Dad begins to snigger, abandoning any attempt to make sense of the situation. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our backs to Mum, who paces around the landing with a newly fitted catheter in her hand.
The catheter has been put in by nurse Marianne to enable our GP, who will be with us in half an hour, to give Mum a lethal injection. But instead of having a moment of peace with us, as Marianne suggested, Mum demands that we clean the toilets. Both upstairs and downstairs.
My brother, Maarten, is sitting on the edge of the bath, staring out of the bathroom window.
"Imagine," he mutters. "Her last hour, spent like this."
This is the Netherlands, where voluntary euthanasia is permitted, as well as physician-assisted suicide. This is the day my mother has chosen to die, and the toilets need to be spotless.

The mundane stories of everyday euthanasia,those that don't usually make it into the papers are often the most disturbing. The blockquote above doesn't adequately express the essense of this story. For those who haven't seen the grim, desparate and ultimately tragic side of this debate, I encourage you to read the whole article. It does an excellent job of pointing out that those who choose assisted suicide are more often than not motivated not by pain, butdepression and fear. What is needed is not a quicker death, but hope.

An excellent story appears in yesterday's NY Times (HT: Wesley Smith) narrating Sarah Palin's story of about her son, Trig, who has down syndrome:

Her hesitation gone, Ms. Palin glowed with maternal pride. "Sarah was absolutely ecstatic," said a friend, Marilyn Lane. After months of reflection and prayer, friends say, the Palins, who are Christians, had come to believe God had sent them Trig.

Later that day, Ms. Palin sent an e-mail message to her relatives and close friends about her new son, Ms. Bruce said. She signed it, "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

"Many people will express sympathy, but you don't want or need that, because Trig will be a joy," Ms. Palin wrote. She added, "Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome."

A level-headed editorial in today's Chicago Tribune by Dennis Byrne argues that by opposing the born-alive infant protection act (because it might in some distant and ambiguous way obstruct abortion), Barack Obama asserted that the right to an abortion trumps an infant's right to life, even after he is born:

... an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.

What a horrible subject. Jill Stanek lists 10 excuses Barack Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA. Click Here

The political landscape changed for liberal religious group Matthew 25 when Sarah Palin was selected by Republicans as their candidate for VP. If you didn't already know, Palin is an evangelical who is being mercilessly attacked by every anti-Christian and liberal group under the sun through fabricated lies and unjust criticism (e.g., Palin's youngest son was not hers). Even Susan Estrich, who agrees with Palin on "nothing", told Geraldo Rivera Sunday night that Palin has been treated terribly.

Instead of showing support for Palin, the Matthew 25 network has maintained its die cast and unquestioning loyalty of Barack Obama, suggesting that his rejection of an anti-infanticide bill was done with good intentions, while throwing Palin to the wolves, even accusing the governor of lying.

The question is why? Why would a "Christian" group support a strong advocate of abortion (based upon his objective voting record!) and a socialist? Don't the 49,000,000 children who have been slaughtered factor into their social conscience and don't they realize the root of socialism is envy and its product is destruction? Has their social agenda clouded their understanding of the very basic commands, "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet"? In their rush to an innovative form of "compassionate" social justice built on post-modern relativism have they forgotten that the objective way to know how to love is by keeping God's law toward one's neighbor?

Barack Obama takes another swing at the abortion question during ABC News' "This Week" program on Sunday.

Obama's statement doesn't think the best way to reduce child killing in the womb is to criminalize it. He states,

I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing murder.

I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for child abuse.

LifeNews has more.

Today on Meet the Press, Sen. Joe Biden stated that life begins at the moment of conception but then appealed to pluralism as justification for not acting upon his belief. That is, as a U.S. Senator, he believes abortion is murder but because others disagree he does not think it is right to do anything about it.

Biden's stand is intellectually dishonest, if not cowardly. The very reason Biden believes abortion is wrong is the basis for why it should be illegal. A man's action define his beliefs and governing officials (i.e., ministers of justice) have a fundamental responsibility to protect the innocent and punish criminals. Leaders, such as Biden, who are not willing to protect those who are being murdered share in the guilt of the crime.

Here's the relevant portion of the interview:

MR. BROKAW: Two weeks ago I interviewed Senator Nancy Pelosi--she's the speaker of the House, obviously--when she was in Denver. When Barack Obama appeared before Rick Warren, he was asked a simple question: When does life begin? And he said at that time that it was above his pay grade. That was the essence of his question. When I asked the speaker what advice she would give him about when life began, she said the church has struggled with this issue for a long time, especially in the last 50 years or so. Her archbishop and others across the country had a very strong refutation to her views on all this; I guess the strongest probably came from Edward Cardinal Egan, who's the Archbishop of New York. He said, "Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being `chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." Those are very strong words. If Senator Obama comes to you and says, "When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe," as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?

SEN. BIDEN: I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths--Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others--who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life--I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights...

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no--it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a--and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

Yes, Biden says life begins at conception and by this he condemns himself as a willing and conscious participant in the murder of 49,000,000 unborn children.

HT: proecclesia

Update: here is the video

Billy Valentine has more.

Dear friend of life,

Greetings from the Pro-life Witness project!

I was inspired by an e-mail that April from North Carolina sent to her friends, and I wanted to share some of it with you:

"I may not know your political view. I may not know your view on abortion. I may not know your religion, but I think I know you well enough to know that you would not stand for the murder of children right here in America!"

April sent this e-mail to her friends and family - something that most people are reluctant or even afraid to do. Her message encouraged them to watch a video about "live birth abortions" and how Barak Obama's refused to offer protection for babies who survive these abortions - and who are left to die in a terrible form of infanticide.

April stepped past her comfort zone, past any reluctance to engage in a controversial topic, and boldly sent out the e-mail without counting the costs.

Now, I have to say that I've received plenty of e-mails on this issue from those who are already strongly pro-life - but if all we are doing is sending these e-mails to one another, then we are preaching to the choir! We aren't the ones who need convincing that Obama is the worst threat to human life!

So I'm asking you to follow April's example and to step outside of your comfort zone. I'm asking you today to send an e-mail message to friends, family, colleagues, sales associates - anyone you've ever e-mailed or received non abortion related messages from - and ask them to watch a video on this topic.

You see, if you won't be a pro-life witness to these people, who will? And if our Internet outreach is limited to those who are passionately pro-life, how are we really going help prevent Obama from being elected?

So please, I'm asking you to write a message to all of your friends, family, associates, colleagues - whoever you have an e-mail address for, and ask them to visit this link:

http://www.prolifewitness.com/videos.aspx

You can even copy April's message above and add this link, or write an e-mail something along the lines of :

I'm not sure where you stand on this, but please watch the video on this page - and forward this message to your friends, family members, and colleagues:

http://www.prolifewitness.com/videos.aspx

(You can copy and paste that passage into a new e-mail, or forward the message I'll be sending you that has the subject "I'm not sure where you stand on this...")

Please know that you are still needed to be a witness on the streets and at the doors and parking lots of the Churches in your community. It is vital that you help distribute the fliers that are available on the links from website at as many Churches between now and election day.

Please visit our new fliers and poster page today to download the fliers and find out how you can have order them for local pickup in your home town (via Staples.com).

Can you commit to downloading the fliers, having them printed, and distributing them on Sunday, the 14th of September? And can you recruit friends and family to help you do this?

Finally, do you need an idea of what Churches are in your community? You can use the yellow pages to find Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Evangelical, and other pro-life Churches. Also, you can find all of the Roman Catholic parishes in your area, along with their schedule of masses, at http://www.masstimes.org/dotnet/default.aspx

If you haven't already, please sign up today at prolifewitness.com for information on an upcoming teleconference in September.

Ruben Obregon
Prolifewitness.com

It's time to stop apologizing for being pro-life. It's time to stop accepting the label "anti-choice." It's time to stop allowing people to keep telling us who we are and what we think.

I resent and refute the notion that if you're pro-life, then you're telling women what to do and taking away their right to choose. To the contrary, this is what pro-life feminists are saying:

Women are strong, powerful, and resilient. They can overcome any obstacle, given a fair chance. They should not be made to feel ashamed for finding themselves in a situation where they may need to ask for help, resources, or even just patience.

Pro-life feminists are telling women who experience an unplanned pregnancy that they are not alone. There are countless people who want to help them. With material needs, housing assistance, childcare resources, and legal representation. You and your child are not a burden. You both are worthy of whatever short-term or long-term assistance you may need -- financial, material, or emotional.

We will be there to help you fight for your rights in the workplace, the classroom, and the courtroom. We will not allow your employer to fire you for being pregnant. We will assist you in finishing your education. We will not allow the father of your child simply to walk away from his responsibilities.

Because you and your child are not the problem.

What are you actually hearing from those who think abortion is the answer? You're on your own.

You shouldn't have to be punished with a baby. You can't finish your degree, get ahead in your career, or find a good man with a baby in tow. It will be for the best.

It's okay to let your boyfriend, abuser, or rapist off the hook when they run off. You and your baby can pay the price for their transgressions. After all, who's going to want to help you? You don't want to be a burden. You don't want to have to ask for assistance.

Don't even think about what is happening. Everything will be ok when it's over. Don't worry about any potential risks. Just blindly go into it, because so many others have done it before, and it's legal, so it must be ok.

You're under a lot of stress right now. You're in no condition to consider working this out any other way. Just get it over with. Oh, you don't really want this? You feel like you really have no choice? Well, that's for you to deal with on your own. Don't you feel empowered?

Thirty-five years of convoluted thinking. Pro-abortion forces think they're fighting for the freedom of women. They think by having abortion available, it equalizes men and women, because then women also have the power to just "walk away." What they refuse to recognize is that as long as they continue to perpetuate the notion that there is something wrong with bearing children, then women will continue to be treated as second-class citizens.

As long as they insist that parenthood is a choice, women who want to have their children will be dismissed by the workplace, the universities, and society in general because "well that was your decision, you didn't have to have that baby" and, for the same reason, men will continue to think that it's okay to abandon their obligations.

Where are all the promises of Roe v. Wade? Over 40 million abortions and women still don't have equal pay, child abuse rates have soared, and more women and children than ever before are in poverty. The status quo ain't workin' -- time to rethink things, NARAL.

Pro-life forces are the ones who are "pro-woman." We are the ones who believe in the capabilities of women. We are the ones telling women they don't have to pay with their children's lives in order to get ahead. We are the ones working for change to alter archaic concepts that oppress pregnant and parenting women in the workforce, in academia, and the world at large.

There are so many other battles that would truly empower women. Fighting child pornography, human trafficking, and rape-as-warfare. But until our child-bearing gift is elevated to its deserved status, pregnant and parenting women and their children will remain to viewed as nothing more than burdens to be disposed of.

The Matthew 25 network is not only disappointed with Sarah Palin's recent address, it is extremely disappointed:

The Matthew 25 Network is extremely disappointed in Sarah Palin's address last night at the Republican National Convention. We call on her not as a political figure but as a prominent Christian, and representative of Christ to the world, to commit herself to campaigning in good faith, with love and respect for her political opponents and a strong commitment to truth-telling.

However, I am extremely disappointed with the Matthew 25 network's "proud" support of Barack Obama, given his anti-christian view of human dignity. Forty-nine million (48,589,993) weak and vulnerable children have been slaughtered in their mother's womb and this network has chosen to attach its name to a political candidate who is committed to protect this atrocity, even to the point of rejecting the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (and then misrepresenting his actions while accusing National Right to Life of lying - more here).

As I was reviewing the Saddleback Civil Forum Videos with Pastor Rick Warren and Senator Barack Obama, I started pondering about the abortion debate we are having in America as well as Obama's remarks. In preparation for my article on the debates, I thought I would let down my guard, if you will, and become transparent with my audience about one of the issues I have a strong disagreement with Obama on.

During the Saddleback Civil Forum, Obama talks about how, for him, abortion is about a "woman's right to choose" because it is such a complex situation and women take a lot of time and thought when making the decision. My reaction was, "no they don't" and "you don't know what you are talking about Mr. Obama."

You see, I know what I am talking about. I am one of those women he was referring to that embraced the "right to choose" message and had an abortion. I did not take any time to ponder what I was doing, what the consequences would be, and if I should indeed even do it.

Since this debate is about women and their unborn child and whether they should or should not have the right to choose, I thought I would post part of a paper I wrote in school on this very subject as proof that Obama and all the other pro-abortion followers are wrong. Abortion does hurt. Abortion does have serious consequences. Abortion is not a choice - it is a cop-out.

I wrote this paper in 2000 but even reading it today, my worldview is still the same. Abortion is not a choice women want to be saddled with. If we truly want to be empowered, we need to take back our voice and stand up and say, "I choose to be responsible!"

Here is what I wrote in my paper about the experience.

"She was a 23-year-old, single, parent. The doctor had told her she was pregnant [...]. His prognosis was an abortion. Numb, she went to her appointment at the abortion clinic. She sat emotionless in the sterile waiting room while awaiting the appointed time. When the nurse came for her, she moved onto the table without thinking. The heat of the lights warmed her body as if trying to take the chill from it. She quietly inhaled the gas mixture the doctor gave her to relax. Suddenly, there was incredible pain. She jerked her legs up and cried. The doctor yelled at her and told her not to move. If she moved, she would bleed to death. Her mind was swimming. This didn't seem right. This wasn't a normal medical procedure. Why didn't anyone talk to her? Why were they all so cold? Why was she here?

The gas was having little effect on the pain. She told the doctor she was feeling pain but he icily responded that he wouldn't give her anything else. The pain ripped through her body again. Hot tears flowed down her cheeks as she turned her head in shame.

Suddenly, a machine that sounded like a vacuum cleaner roared. As she looked up she saw clear tubes. And then she saw it passing through the tubes. What had she done? She felt as if they were tearing this child out of her body. Would she ever forget the noise of that machine? Her chest heaved in uncontrollable sobs as the realization of what she had done to her unborn child sprang forth in her soul."

For some reason, I did not enter adulthood understanding the discipline of choice. I did not understand that every human act is accompanied with the ability to choose, nor did I understand that with that ability comes an individual responsibility for the consequences incurred from the decision made.

Even though I was raised in a Christian home, when I moved out of my own I chose to embrace society's truths. I wandered form the truths of integrity, morality, and character that I had been taught. I embraced a "woman's right to choose" because it released me, in my mind at least, from my responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. If I had a right to choose abortion, then I could continue a life of promiscuity and eliminate any "consequences" that might come along.

Obama and planned parenthood can continue telling us that abortion doesn't hurt women, that a "woman's right to choose" is more important that the child's life, or that abortion is a choice. However, that doesn't make it truth. I lived through the after math of an abortion. Besides the fact that I "murdered" a living human being, I suffered physical consequences in my body, my mind, as well as my spirit. When something that is so intricately intertwined with you is ripped away, it leaves a lasting imprint. There will always be a hole where that child was even when you are healed in spirit, mind and body. Nothing can take that away. One day you were carrying a child, the next...your weren't. A woman's body wasn't designed to endure the aftermath of an abortion.

I have come to peace with what I did those many years ago and my purpose for posting this isn't to garner sympathy but instead to put a face to it.

I'm just one woman who fell for the lie. One of millions. A fetus is a human being at conception. There is no debate about it. Just ask someone who has had an abortion. We know.

Greeted with embarrassingly intense applause, we watched John McCain accept his party's nomination for President of the United States. McCain is not a dynamic speaker and his delivery does not reach the oratory levels of his opponent but he does stand for principles that we can respect:

We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities.

We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself.

"I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman -- the rights of the unborn -- that I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career," McCain said. "To me, it's an issue of human rights and human dignity."

"You can count on my active advocacy for the rights of the unborn."

In the end, there is a sharp contrast between McCain's rejection of Roe v. Wade and Obama's rejection of laws that protect children who survive abortion attempts. Yes, is is true that ...

The National Abortion Rights League has given McCain a 0% rating. They refer to his voting record as "solidly anti-choice." In fact when you read what NARAL has to say, you ask why is there any controversy on the pro-life side. Would that the rest of the Senate would vote this way on pro-life issues.

... The bottom line is that a democrat in the White House, whether it is Obama or Hillary would be a disaster to the unborn children, to the medically dependent and disabled and to those who are vulnerable, whether they are the elderly or the infirm or the next Terri Schiavo. IF WE CARE about those potential situations, we must insure the election of John McCain.

"Senator John McCain, has consistently taken a strong pro-life position against abortion, has a strong pro-life voting record against abortion and opposes Roe v. Wade

These are important.

If the posts on this blog are any indication, more than his speech could ever do the nomination of Sarah Palin as his running mate has energized pro-life voters.

Last night at the GOP Convention everyone anticipated Governor Sarah Palin's address to the delegates. The excitement was amazing and the fears of some were only matched by the confidence of others.

Well as you know by now she hit a home run. Or as one delegate said a grand slam.

As i listened to the speech, I could feel the excitement around me as she delivered each line with grace, poise and determination. After she would make an important point, she would pause and smile just a little, as if to say, don't mess with me.

Today as the GOP prepares for McCain's address to the nation, even the liberal pundits had to sit up and take notice that the small town major and governor form the energy rich state of Alaska is not going to wilt under the pressure of liberal biased media.

Perhaps now the campaign will focus on issues.

Perhaps now we can compare the Democratic Candidate who considers pregnancy a punishment with the Republican Candidate who welcomed and adopted a little baby with special medical needs

The one who cannot answer a simple question about when we as people get human rights versus John McCain who knows that all human rights commence at conception.

See you on Friday at the AZRTL dinner and Saturday at the AZRTL Conference. You can still register by clicking here.

Cross-Posted: Jacubczyk on Life

Culture of Life: Going, Going...Gone?
by Senator Sam Aanestad

Part of the reason I became an oral surgeon was because of my belief that serving God means valuing human life. I took an oath to protect those that He creates.

As a legislator in the California Senate, that oath is even more critical.

Patients facing a terminal illness have many needs. Among them are comfort, pain relief and information to make critical decisions. They need dignity, respect and the support of those who love and care for them. They need prayer and the help of clergy, family and friends.

What they don't need is an intrusion into their relationship with their doctor.

Proponents of California's AB 2747 "Terminal Patients' Right to Know End-of-life Options" say it is just about information. Unfortunately, it does much more than educate terminally ill patients. It interferes with the care of patients who are about to receive the worst news of their lives.

Sponsored by a group that promotes physician-assisted suicide--formerly known as the Hemlock Society--the original language of AB 2747 included a mandate that doctors give specific information to patients when advising them they have less than one year to live. Patients would have to be told that they could be sedated into a coma and stop eating and drinking.

Dozens of opponents testified against this measure during a recent marathon hearing of the Senate Health Committee. They included disability rights advocates, nursing organizations, doctors who care for cancer patients, minority rights groups, members of religious communities, hospitals and individuals who are affected by this issue.

A breast cancer surgeon opposed to AB 2747 told me that her patients need more than just "end of life" options.

"I was usually the one to make the diagnosis and give that information to my patients and their families," she told me. "The relationships I developed with these women were built over time. They trusted me to take care of them."

She cared for patients who were clinically depressed or addicted to Methamphetamine or mentally ill. Some were from abusive situations. Some came from cultures that condemned physical illness as a sign of moral failure. Some women preferred their religious faith to medical treatment.

She explained how AB 2747 would hurt a woman facing Stage IV breast cancer:

"It would have been cruel to take a list of treatments that may not even apply to my patient and tell her 'Here, this is what the California Legislature said I have to tell you when you find out you're dying and you ask me what to do.'"

These women need a doctor to see them as individuals. As a health care professional myself, I can't imagine treating a dying patient according to a government dictate of what they need to hear and when.

It bothers me that AB 2747 leaves no option for the compassion of a doctor who knows her patient best. A cancer doctor caring for a depressed patient who says "What can I do?" would have no recourse other than to do exactly as the bill mandates--give the information the California Legislature says she needs when they say she needs it.

The priority for every patient is to dispense a laundry list developed by Sacramento politicians.

It also bothers me that this legislation is a back door approach for advocates of euthanasia. AB 2747 contains language that can easily be amended in the future to include other treatments than those it now includes--treatments like those advocated by the bill's sponsor, the former Hemlock Society.

People who are hurting don't need the legal maneuver in AB 2747. They don't need state government to stand between people who suffer and those they choose to care for them.

If you don't believe that a government's role is to devalue human life, please defend the terminally ill. Urge the Governor of California to VETO AB 2747.

Senator Aanestad represents the 4th Senate District and serves as Vice Chair of the Senate Health Committee.

At the Republican National Convention ...

Sarah Palin takes the podium and the crowd inexplicably goes wild, don't they know the media doesn't like her. She's not a Washington insider or one of the intellectual elite.

No, she didn't focus on pro-life issues - her stand on behalf of the unborn is well known.

Instead, she introduced herself and her family, highlighting the April birth of her son with Down Syndrome.

And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

Her respect of life, conservative values, down to earth style, practical solutions and emphasis on family connect well with middle America. She's one of us.

Jill Stanek notes Keith Olbermann's repetition of the Obama Campaign's (damage control) talking points concerning Obama's opposition to Born Alive. Here's the video:

Jill's documentation is ample refutation of Olbermanns editorial. In the video, I do find revealing, if not repulsive, the Republican Party's promotion of Joe Lieberman, an ardent supporter of abortion. What are the often mentioned but never defined bigger issues that unite us?

Alliance Defense Fund and allied attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday against Harford County, the town of Bel Air, and seven police officials on behalf of three young, pro-life women. At least a dozen police officers arrived in more than seven marked vehicles and then arrested, jailed, shackled, and/or strip searched 18 pro-life advocates, including the three women, after they held signs and shared their message along a public street.

"The state shouldn't persecute Christians for expressing their beliefs on important social issues, nor deny them their constitutional rights," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. "This incident paints an ugly picture of the state of religious freedom and free speech in America today."

"The truth of the matter is that our clients were heckled, arrested, imprisoned, shackled, and strip searched twice for exercising their First Amendment rights," said ADF-allied attorney Daniel Cox, who is serving as local counsel. "No excuse exists for how our young clients were treated."

At least 12 police officers handcuffed 18 peaceful participants in Defend Life's "Face the Truth" Pro-life Tour and denied them a reason for their arrests. They had relocated to Bel Air after being told by officers to move from another location for not having a permit to engage in free speech activities. Three young female participants--including teenagers--were subjected to two rounds of strip searches.

The first search took place in the police station parking lot in front of other males. A female officer pulled out the young ladies' shirt collars to inspect their breasts before reaching down their pants to feel around their waistlines. The Harford County Detention Center administered the second strip search after the pro-life participants were transferred there. A female officer took the women one by one into a bathroom with a partially open door and ordered them to lift up their shirts and brassieres.

Officials cast the pro-life participants in leg irons, denied them permission to call parents until after midnight, and did not release any of them until the following day. None were informed that attorneys Steve Peroutka and Scott Whiteman had been prohibited from having any contact with them after arriving at the station earlier that night to assist them. On Aug. 12, the state decided not to pursue the false charges against them, which included loitering, disorderly conduct, and failure to obey a lawful order. They were never charged for a permit offense.

The complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, in Swagler v. Harford County is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SwaglerComplaint.pdf. The Thomas More Society of Chicago and the American Catholic Lawyers Association represent some of the other pro-life participants.

On the eve of her speech to the Republican National Convention I hate to spread more rumors about Sarah Palin. However, this was just brought to my attention:

Death once had a near-Sarah Palin experience.

When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

Sarah Palin can divide by zero.

Global Warming doesn't kill polar bears. Sarah Palin kills polar bears, with her teeth.

Sarah Palin knows how old the Chinese gymnasts are.

Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point North.

Updated: Here's the latest dirt including "Environmental shocker: Palin's cat seen scratching claws on rare Alaskan pine tree ."

Conservative bloggers are up in arms over the MSM's coverage of the Republican Convention:

Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN team seized every possible opportunity to put down and criticize the Republican message and tonight's speakers - and to belittle Sarah Palin as much as possible, even though she didn't even speak tonight. Every single point and every element of the Republican message tonight was criticized, not just explained or reported, but criticized or totally framed to be negative.

I'm usually a fan of Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, and he has me on his CNN program regularly. He declares, via Twitter, "McCain people are seriously pissed at the press and not bothering to hide it." Gee, I can't imagine why. They're treating the running mate's family like the stars of a deranged reality show, they've botched several key facts about her in their reporting, and several networks just ignored Fred Thompson's speech, in order to showcase their own talking heads bashing Palin.

Consider Brent Bozell on Savaging Sarah Palin:

John McCain made a bold choice in not merely picking a woman, but picking a pro-life woman courageous enough to put her motherhood where her mouth is. Now the media want him to pay dearly for it. The idea that they would lecture anyone else about rumor-mongering or "Swift-boating" ought to be laughed off the public stage.

Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin's commitment to motherhood and even challenge her prenatal care decisions in an effort to destroy her. Forget about questioning their patriotism. I question their sanity.

Update: More from Michelle Malkin - does this look balanced?

It looks like Barack Obama has become John McCain's top marketing agent, at least to the pro-life community:

Obama's new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain "will make abortion illegal." It's airing as McCain courts female voters with the addition of the staunchly anti-abortion governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to his ticket.

Update: Is Obama's evangelical outreach on the ropes? Pro-Life EV comments, "Now Brian McClaren and any other so called Evangelical that supports him needs to face the fact that he is a pro-abortion zealot. "

By Ruben Obregon

Judah..

As I mentioned in my prior post about home births and the ACOG, my wife decided to give birth at home..

Two weeks ago we thought little Judah, who had already been in the world for 38 weeks, was going to be born. As it turns out, it was a bit early...

But last night his mom's contractions started to become somewhat regular, and this afternoon they were close enough to know that birth was imminent.

It's 10:44pm (EST) and right now I'm filling the birthing pool in my living room, as my wife relaxes while listening to her ipod (she's listening to her hypnobabies program.). The midwife is on her way, and I'm making sure everything is just right...

Children are such a blessing, and the birth of a child is such a blessing to a family - one has to wonder why anybody would want to limit the number of blessings they would receive. I guess children don't stack up to fancy cars, large houses, credit card debt, and other things that make people not be able to "afford" the gift of more children.

This pregnancy has made me realize that the pro-life movement offers something that the abortion rights movement can't - the feeling that every birth, planned or not, is a beautiful event, and that every child conceived is a miracle.

Jonathan Morris just won't let up Democrats:

If as a Party you pursue with Senator Obama and Speaker Pelosi some clarity about the status of the human embryo (a question they both consider important), you will eventually have to make a decision. You will either decide pre-born babies have rights because modern embryologists say they, too, are unique human individuals, or you will be forced to take the very hard line of saying some human individuals just don't deserve human rights, for whatever sordid reason.

[snip]

This old way of thinking of brushing aside the rights of the unborn because, "they aren't really human humans," in my opinion, will not stand the test of time because it is anti-science. There are simply too many pictures and videos of beautiful pre-born babies, reaching out their tiny hands or reacting to intruders.

Why do politicians insist they personally oppose abortion when their public actions reveal that they consistently and intentionally support the killing of unborn children?

Delaware Senator Joe Biden in one such official who has adopted Mario Cuomo's famous "I'm personally opposed to abortion" line despite the fact that the very reason to be opposed to abortion is the same reason it should be illegal. Here's his statement on the topic,

I remember vividly the first time, in 1973, I had to go to the floor to vote on abortion. A fellow Senator asked how I would vote. "My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I've thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn't please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court's decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman's right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion."

I've stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years. I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I'd like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.

When someone states that he or she is "personally opposed" to something, my first question is, "Why?" What is it about abortion that you oppose? This question is almost never asked of the "I'm personally opposed but" (IPOB) crowd. I can see using this argument for "I'm personally opposed to smoking cigarettes," or "I'm personally opposed to drinking alcohol," but I don't see how the IPOB argument works for abortion. So we're back to why Biden is personally opposed to abortion? Is it because abortion snuffs out a human life? If this is the reason, then being personally opposed must transfer over to the civil arena. If what is growing inside a woman's womb is not a human life, then there is no reason even to be personally opposed. The reason a person can be personally opposed to cigarette smoking and alcohol is that the damage done to the body is personal. A preborn baby is not a part of a woman's body. He or she is a separate biological entity. A preborn baby is not like a diseased appendix or lung. What is born is another human being.

Really, it is time to call politicians on the carpet who promote every form of abortion under the sun but then hide under the words "I'm personally opposed" as a twisted justification for their actions.

It had to happen ... we knew it would.

CNN used the story about Sarah Palin's daughter to promote sex-ed in schools through the Alliance for Reproductive Justice ("abstinence doesn't work"). Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett called Wolf Blitzer on the carpet (Newsbusters):

But that first piece of attack of journalism, Wolf, I got to speak to. We all praised Barack Obama, myself included, for saying, do not use the case of this child to start to beat up Sarah Palin and to use this as an opportunity to make points for the Center for Reproductive Pregnancy [Alliance for Reproductive Rights]. That was really out and out outrageous. That should not happen on CNN.

[snip]

What we should do is what's most effective. Abstinence education I believe, the best programs are the most effective. But these are decisions that can be made at the state level. But that bit of advocacy has no place on CNN and its respectable journalism.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life (and pro-life blogger extraordinaire), issued the following statement in response to news that the daughter of McCain running mate Sarah Palin is pregnant:

"As the mother of five children, I know this situation is not the ideal Sarah Palin wished for her daughter.

But the way we react to life's challenges is the true testament to our character. The Palin family is displaying courage and constancy.

We join them in welcoming this new life. Our prayers are with the entire Palin family as they deal with this in the intense glare of the media spotlight."

Thank you, God for giving us a TRUE pro-life candidate - one who doesn't see babies as punishments and one who is clearly attuned to your will.

For all the Obamas' talk of being just plain folks, this real life family puts every political family I've ever seen to shame.

Now help us to do our part - to follow the Palins' example of acceptance and love and to get to work securing true pro-life leadership for our country.

What a wonderful world this could be!

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced today that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant and is planning to keep the baby and marry the father

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

The Family Research Council's Tony Perkins commented,

"Unfortunately, teenage pregnancy has become all too common in today's society regardless of a family's economic or social status. It is problem that we remain committed to reducing through encouraging young people to practice abstinence.

"Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation. We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband to be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public."

... look for there to be a sharp contrast drawn between the Palin family's loving acceptance of the new child, with Senator Barack Obama's statement that he wouldn't want his daughters "punished with a baby" if they made a "mistake."

As I ponder all of this, I think McCain/Palin versus Obama/Biden vividly reflects the cultural divisions that are tearing our society apart more starkly than any election in my memory.

There is no doubt that Bristol's baby is recognized to be a human being, not because she decided to keep her child, but rather because he or she is the creation of God, endowed with a intrinsic value and dignity from a transcendent source.

Barbabra writes with the insight and experience:

Consider being merciful in your judgment. Ask God to guide your thoughts.

We are sinners saved by grace. That means each one of us is closer to falling than many care to think. And pride goes before a fall - God will not allow believers to stay in our self-righteousness and judgment of others. He loves us too much.

Bottom line: now more than ever, McCain/Palin.

Well, I guess this proves that Daily Kos was lying.

Breaking news:

Gov. Palin Says Her Unmarried 17-Year-Old Daughter Is Pregnant

September 01, 2008 12:28 PM

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," reads the statement from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband Todd.

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned," they continued, referring to their 17-year-old daughter. "As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support."

The Palins said that "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced Palin as his running mate just three days ago, said the Palins would have no further comment.

"We ask that the media respect their daughter in the same tradition that has been afforded children of past candidates," McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said.

Read entire article here.

I suppose that this means another bloc of judgmental, self-righteous fundamentalist fanatics will say it's proof that Palin isn't meant to be where she is.

I say look to the Bible for example after example of God-appointed leaders who had real lives - full of flaws - and children who brought judgment to their parents.

I've lived long enough and met enough Christian parents who did everything right only to see their children make poor choices that I would never ever use that in judgment over another parent. It's easy when your children are young to think that if you put in all the right ingredients, they will turn out perfectly. Those of us who've done that and then watched our children grow into adults - most of us - know that that's just not the case.

God gave us free will. And thinking that you can control the outcome of your children's lives - preventing them from ever making mistakes - is a form of spiritual pride. Even the perfect parent - God Our Father - saw his children who enjoyed perfect daily intimate relationship with Him disobey His commands.

I wrote yesterday that God sends trials to leaders to test them - and to test us as well. I see a lot of Christians poised to fail this test. I am praying for them even as I pray for the Palins.

All I can say as someone who has seen my own plans crumble is that I thank God every day for each and every way they did. Otherwise I might still be the same unmerciful judgmental person I was when I did everything perfectly.

God bless Sarah Palin and her family. It's not the fact that her daughter got pregnant so much as the fact of how they are handling it that shows their true values.

I've heard from the pulpit that the abortion rate among evangelicals is as high as among the general population. That's because evangelicals would rather face God's judgment than the judgment of their peers. Hallelujah that the Palins - mother and daughter both - chose life when it would have been more convenient and less embarrassing to choose death.

Consider being merciful in your judgment. Ask God to guide your thoughts.

We are sinners saved by grace. That means each one of us is closer to falling than many care to think. And pride goes before a fall - God will not allow believers to stay in our self-righteousness and judgment of others. He loves us too much.

Bottom line: now more than ever, McCain/Palin.

The groundless rumor (not worth detailing) began from idle speculation and grew before their creators were humiliated by reality. And they're criticizing Sarah Palin for her credibility issues and poor judgment. The story of Trig Paxson Van Palin is actually quite inspiring. Anchoress rightly notes - No one should ever be judged, except Christians.