Monday, December 31, 2007

LA gang F13 accused of targeting blacks

LA gang F13 accused of targeting blacks

By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

LOS ANGELES - In a murderous quest aimed at "cleansing" their turf of snitches and rival gangsters, members of one of Los Angeles County's most vicious Latino gangs sometimes killed people just because of their race, an investigation found.

ADVERTISEMENT


There were even instances in which Florencia 13 leaders ordered killings of black gangsters and then, when the intended victim couldn't be located, said "Well, shoot any black you see," Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said.

"In certain cases some murders were just purely motivated on killing a black person," Baca said.

Authorities say there were 20 murders among more than 80 shootings documented during the gang's rampage in the hardscrabble Florence-Firestone neighborhood, exceptional even in an area where gang violence has been commonplace for decades. They don't specify the time frame or how many of the killings were racial.

Los Angeles has struggled with gang violence for years, especially during the wars in the late 1980s and early '90s between the Crips and the Bloods — both black gangs. Latino gangs have gained influence since then as the Hispanic population surged.

Evidence of Florencia 13, or F13, is easy to find in Florence-Firestone. Arrows spray-painted on the wall of a liquor store mark the gang's boundary and graffiti warns rivals to steer clear.

The gang's name comes from the neighborhood that is its stronghold and the 13th letter of the alphabet — M — representing the gang's ties to the Mexican Mafia.

Federal, state and local officials worked together to charge 102 men linked to F13 with racketeering, conspiracy to murder, weapons possession, drug dealing and other crimes. In terms of people charged, it's the largest-ever federal case involving a Southern California gang, prosecutors say. More than 80 of those indicted are in custody.

But eliminating the gang won't be easy. It's survived for decades and is believed to have about 2,000 members. Its reach extends to Nevada, Arizona and into prisons, where prosecutors say incarcerated gang leaders were able to order hits on black gangsters.

According to the indictment, F13's leader, Arturo Castellanos, sent word in 2004 from California's fortress-like Pelican Bay State Prison that he wanted his street soldiers to begin "cleansing" Florence-Firestone of black gangsters, notably the East Coast Crips, and snitches.

His followers eagerly obeyed, according to federal prosecutors.

In one case, F13 members came across a black man at a bus stop, shouted "Cheese toast!" and fired. "Cheese toast" is a derogatory name for East Coast Crips, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin S. Rosenberg said.

The victim, apparently targeted only because of his skin color, survived being shot several times, Rosenberg said.

F13 isn't the only Latino gang linked to racial killings. Last year, four members of The Avenues, a gang from the Highland Park area east of downtown Los Angeles, were convicted of hate crimes for killing a black man in what prosecutors called a campaign to drive blacks from that neighborhood. And last January, authorities announced a crackdown on the 204th Street gang following the killing of a 14-year-old black girl.

The violence goes both ways, said Adam Torres, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department gang detective whose beat includes Florence-Firestone.

During a recent patrol on the east side of the neighborhood, he pointed to a cinderblock wall peppered with bullet holes. Torres said the Crips still control that area and any Hispanic there is at risk of being shot.

Despite the wave of violence, George Tita, a criminologist with the University of California, Irvine, said racially motivated gang killings are an exception. Latinos and blacks are far more likely to be murdered by one of their own.

"You don't see these major black-brown wars, either within the context of gangs or outside the context of gangs," Tita said.

Residents of Florence-Firestone are loath to discuss gangs, fearful they might end up as targets, but there are signs of change. Murders in the neighborhood dropped from 43 in 2005 to 19 in 2006, Baca said. For 2007, there were 19 murders as of Dec. 24.

Jose Garcia sees the difference. The security doors on the store where he works aren't covered with graffiti as often and he hasn't heard a gunshot in two months.

"It used to be at least once or twice a week," he said.

Michael Savage lawsuit links CAIR to 9/11 plot

WorldNetDaily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59440

December 29, 2007

Michael Savage lawsuit links CAIR to 9/11 plot

Talker amends lawsuit against organizer of Muslim boycott to include RICO charges


WASHINGTON – It's no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.

The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."

The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

And as WND has reported, CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations.

"Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.

Savage and celebrity civil rights attorney Daniel Horowitz are attempting to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to make the case that "CAIR and its co-conspirators have aided, abetted and materially sponsored al-Qaida and international terrorism."

CAIR launched a campaign against "The Savage Nation," as the program is called, using extended audio clips of the show to make the case that advertisers who supported the talker were actually endorsing "hate speech" against Muslims.

Savage turned the tables on the activist group by initially suing for copyright violation of the show's material. This week the suit was expanded with some of the strongest allegations ever made against CAIR publicly.

Among the charges is that CAIR is "part of a deliberately complex and deliberately confusing array of related organizations" and that its "organizational structure is part of a scheme to hide the illegal activities of the group, funding, the transfer of funds and to complicate investigation of the group."

Other highlights of the suit:

* "CAIR is not a civil rights organization and it never has been. … CAIR was and is a political organization that advocates a specific political agenda on behalf of foreign interests."

* "The copyright infringement was done to raise funds for CAIR so that it could perpetuate and continue to perform its role in the RICO conspiracy set forth in Count Two and to disseminate propaganda on behalf of foreign interests that are opposed to the continued existence of the United States of America as a free nation."

* "CAIR would have to register as a foreign agent if their activities were not hidden under the false claim that they are a civil rights organization that enjoys tax-exempt status."

* "CAIR was tied to terror from the day it was formed. The group was incorporated on or about 1994 by Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. Both men were officers of a terror organization known as the 'Islamic Association of Palestine.'"

* "CAIR's parent group, IAP, was founded in or about 1982 by Musa Abu Marzook. Marzook was IAP's ideological leader and controlling director from the date of its founding until shortly after his deportation from the United States in 1997. At all time relevant, Marzook was an operative of, and/or affiliated with, the 'Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah,' or 'Hamas.' Hamas is an international terrorist organization."

* In 1998, "CAIR demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as 'the sworn enemy,' asserting that this depiction [was] 'offensive to Muslims.'"

* In 1998, "CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the two al-Qaida bombings of American embassies in Africa. CAIR's leader Ibrahim Hooper claimed the bombings resulted from 'misunderstandings on both sides.'"

* "On October 5, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, CAIR's New York office sent a letter to The New York Times arguing that the paper had misidentified three of the hijackers and suggesting that the attacks may have been committed by people who were impersonating Arab Muslims."

* "CAIR further exploited 9/11 as it put on its website a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and below it a call for donations that was linked to the Holy Land Foundation website." The Holy Land Foundation, the suit charges, is "a terror organization."

* "CAIR receives significant international funding. For example, in 1999 the Islamic Development Bank gave a $250,000 grant to CAIR to purchase land for a national headquarters. In 2002, the World Association for Muslim Youth, a Saudi government-funded organization, financed distributing books on Islam free of charge and an advertising campaign in American publications. This included a quarter page in USA Today each Friday, for a year, estimated to cost $1.04 million. In 2003, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $500,000 to distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States. In 2005, CAIR's Washington branch received a donation of $1,366,466 from a Saudi Arabian named Adnan Bogary. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, deputy ruler of Dubai and UAE minister of finance and industry, financed the building of a property in the U.S. to serve as an endowment for the organization. This gift is thought to generate income of approximately $3 million a year."

* "The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Wahabbi-based Islamic terrorists throughout North America. They are the intellectual 'shock troops' of Islamic terrorism."

* "The Council on American-Islamic Relations is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda."

* "CAIR has links to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorism expert Steven Emerson has stated before Congress that CAIR is a front for Hamas."

Savage's case also cites another ongoing suit against CAIR filed by the estate of John P. O'Neill, the former head of security for the World Trade Center. It alleges a RICO conspiracy involving CAIR led to the 9/11 attack.

"Throughout this period," the Savage suit alleges, "CAIR conspired to support terrorism and to obfuscate the roles of the various participants and conspirators in Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or al-Qaida and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which conspiracy culminated in the 9/11 attack."

It continues: "The pattern of racketeering activity conducted by CAIR is separate from the existence of Radical Muslim Terrorism, and/or the al-Qaida, and/or the International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, but was a necessary component of the 9/11 attack. The RICO enterprise conducts terrorism all over the world; the racketeering activity conducted by CAIR funds that activity, which activity culminated in the 9/11 attack."

CAIR has refused to comment on Savage's suit to date. But it has claimed a host of companies have stopped advertising on Savage's show as a result of its boycott campaign.

However, an investigation by WND shows some of those boycott victories are questionable. In one announcement claiming Universal Orlando Resorts "drops 'Savage Nation' ads," CAIR stated: "Advertisers that have already stopped airing, or refuse to air commercials on 'Savage Nation' include AutoZone, Citrix, TrustedID, JCPenney, OfficeMax, Wal-Mart and AT&T."

But AutoZone told WND the CAIR campaign had nothing to do with its advertising decision, and it had chosen not to advertise on any radio talk shows – of all parts of the spectrum – years before the CAIR effort.

CAIR officials declined to respond to WND queries about why it is listing companies as part of its boycott campaign that say they have not participated in the boycott.

Officials of Talk Radio Network, Savage's syndicator, confirmed to WND that companies including AutoZone and JCPenney never advertise on such programs.

"We do not sponsor syndicated radio talk shows," AutoZone spokesman Ray Pohlman told WND. "We have customers of all shapes and sizes and political persuasions. For us to sponsor [any radio talk shows] wouldn't make any sense."

But that policy is years old, and wasn't changed at all by CAIR's effort, he said.

"What I will tell you is the CAIR organization did, in fact, contact the marketing department [of AutoZone.] We responded with our full advertising policy which clearly states that we do not advertise on radio talk shows," he told WND.

The announcement about Universal was made by the Hate Hurts America Community and Interfaith Coalition, of which CAIR is a prominent member.

It said Universal Orlando Resorts "has joined a growing list of advertisers that have stopped advertising or refuse to place their ads on Michael Savage's 'Savage Nation' Radio program."

The campaign also has triggered a lawsuit by Savage against CAIR over its alleged misappropriation of Savage's radio broadcast material. In the lawsuit, Savage depicts CAIR as a "vehicle of international terrorism."

CAIR says it is challenging Savage's "hate speech," and referenced Savage comments such as:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

The Savage suit says comments like that are taken out of context.

Another major company CAIR claims has joined the boycott of Michael Savage is JCPenney. But as with AutoZone, JCPenney officials told WND readers they were not making any special provision in their advertising policy that would make them part of a protest campaign, but officials did not respond directly to WND inquiries.

"JCPenney did not 'pull' advertising from the show. JCPenney has had a long standing policy about not advertising on any show that can be construed as controversial. An error in upholding this policy was made by a few local stations, and it has now been clarified," the company told a WND reader.

"Wal-Mart does not sponsor or advertise on the Michael Savage show. We have asked radio networks to ensure that Wal-Mart ads do not run in programming that we deem controversial and are sending out content guidelines reminders to radio networks and stations," said that company.

Savage's lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by CAIR, which the lawsuit says seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients."

Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage's show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims. The lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage's verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

"The audience of 'The Savage Nation' expects this type of from-the-heart outrage and when it is directed at a murderer such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his ilk, the piece is far more understandable and far more American mainstream. While the strength of the outrage is remarkable and a hallmark of 'The Savage Nation,' the sentiment is shared by a huge number of Americans," the lawsuit says.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Romney's Gay Mafia Christmas Present

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney?

The Gay Mafia's media attacked Huckbee for saying Merry Christmas and daring to mention Jesus during Happy Holidays season.

The Gay Mafia supports Romney and Giuliani for promoting "homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren."

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney? Romney seems to be deeper in the pocket of the Gay Mafia. Even Giuliani seems afraid to give a "Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby."

Fred

Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy

CHICAGO, December 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro- family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith- minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro- family leaders -- who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism -- will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro- homosexual-agenda candidate."

LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro- homosexual 'orientation' laws -- long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives - to the rest of the nation.

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' -- which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro- homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

Republicans For Family Values is a website dedicated to defending pro-life and pro-natural-family principles within the GOP. For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is also president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.


Christian Newswire

Was Romney the Most Pro-abortion/Gay Mafia Republican Official in the Nation?

Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade.

The idea that he has suddenly become a conservative after a decade of liberal actions and statements would be merely amusing were it not for the fact that he's running for the presidency and that many conservatives are falling for this act.

[http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:YZp8hH7VrVwJ:www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/+Romney+Patrick+Guerriero+2004+Civil+Unions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

The Mitt Romney Deception
by Brian Camenker, MassResistance
November 20, 2006

[Download as Word format]

Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal - and that his new found conversion to conservatism very likely coincides with his candidacy for the presidency.

The information in this report is gleaned from public records, press accounts, internet web sites and research (as well as personal observation) by my organization, MassResistance, a grass-roots pro-family group that has observed Governor Romney for over a decade. We have analyzed his legislation, met with his staff, lobbied for and against his agenda (depending what it is) and otherwise compiled considerable research on his administration.

We believe this report is necessary due to a calculated effort by the Romney campaign to revise his history and portray the Governor as far more conservative than the record indicates. Already, the Governor's staff is making appointments with the nation's leading conservative leaders to convince them that he should be the standard bearer for the conservative movement in the upcoming presidential elections.

We have also been alarmed by misleading and glowing accounts about Romney which have appeared in the conservative media over the past year. The fact that these articles were based upon sloppy research and material supplied by the Romney camp gave us great incentive to set the record straight. Few national political writers have bothered to speak with any MassResistance member, or for that matter anyone critical of Romney's record.

One of the few conservative publications to expose Romney's liberalism is the conservative weekly Human Events which (in a 2005 article) listed Romney at number eight on its list of "Top Ten Republicans in Name Only (RINOs)." Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade. The idea that he has suddenly become a conservative after a decade of liberal actions and statements would be merely amusing were it not for the fact that he's running for the presidency and that many conservatives are falling for this act.

[http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:YZp8hH7VrVwJ:www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/+Romney+Patrick+Guerriero+2004+Civil+Unions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Will Hillary be Bill's Vice President?

Which Clinton Running the Show?

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann


As Bill Clinton crisscrosses America defending his wife's candidacy, he's fueling speculation about who'd be in charge should Hillary be elected.

Sen. Clinton — the incredible shrinking candidate — seems at times almost a bystander at her husband's campaign, merely playing a somewhat more active role than she did in '92.

In our modern era of dynastic politics, the elder members of the dynasties have a duty to step aside to let their less experienced heirs shine. Former President George H.W. Bush, for example, has stayed well out of the limelight to let his son have center stage. Yet Bill Clinton is playing an ever-larger role in his wife's campaign.

At first, his appearances were novel and politically helpful. But then they came to underscore her weakness.

It was as if Dennis Thatcher had stood up for Maggie as she faced down the Argentine junta in the Falklands war. Now, Bill's oversized presence on the national stage raises an even more profound question: Is he using his wife's candidacy to seek a third term in office, prohibited him by the 22nd Amendment?

Increasingly, he seems like former Gov. George Wallace, who put his wife Lurleen into the Alabama State House after he was forced from office by term limits. (Or, in a more recent example, like Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who stepped aside only to have his wife, Christina Fernandez Kirchner, take power.)

In '90, Hillary Clinton faced a similar problem when she flirted with the idea of running for governor of Arkansas. Bill, determined to seek the presidency in '92, was weighing whether to run for another term as governor or to step down and seek the presidency as a private citizen.

Key to his decision was whether Hillary could take his place, both to keep the seat warm for him should he lose the presidential race and to stop any unwanted revelations from surfacing while he was off campaigning.

But the polls I took at the Clintons' behest found that voters saw Hillary merely as an extension of Bill, not as an independent political figure. Arkansans saw her possible candidacy for governor as an attempt to be a placeholder for her husband.

When I likened the public reaction to Hillary's candidacy to that of Alabama voters to Lurleen's years before, Hillary and Bill exploded in shock and indignation (more his than hers) at the metaphor; they even asked me to do a second poll to confirm the results.

Hillary thereupon began a 20-year effort to differentiate herself from Bill and craft an independent identity.

Now that project is at risk. Bill's intervention has become so overt, voluble, high-profile and independent that it calls into question the entire premise that Hillary is running for president as anything other than a figurehead.

The idea that you get "two for the price of one" was a misnomer in the '92 campaign when Bill first broached it. He was always the president. Yes, Hillary was his chief adviser in '93 and '94 (and again between '98 and '00). But in '95, '96 and '97, she acted merely as first lady, touring the world and promoting her book.

Until Bill began his active campaigning for Hillary, she benefited from the merger of their identities. Lacking much experience on her own (except for the healthcare debacle), she could expropriate his record to provide a basis for her candidacy. She could run promising an extension of his presidency, but in a new time with a new candidate at the top.

But now the merger is working against her. Voters are wondering for which Clinton they will be voting when they pull the lever.

Could it be that "two for the price of one" still misrepresents reality? Does Bill so dominate the stage that he'd overshadow his wife were she elected? As Bill campaigns all over all the time, Americans are wondering, Whose presidency will it be, anyway?

© 2007 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Friday, December 28, 2007

Romney and Same Sex Marriage

Excellent Comment!!

Thank you Tom.

Tom Lang said...
Excellent Post!!

With regards to Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts...

when is Romney going to fess up to the fact that he was negotiating with the Log Cabin President, Patrick Guerriero back in 2004 to accept Civil Unions?

If you remember, Goodridge happened and our legislature was looking at "The Compromise Amendment" which would offer Civil Unions en lieu of marriage. Most of us were saying "NO" to civil unions, however playing the game of chess Romney was opting for civil unions instead of marriage or nothing. Unfortunately the Log Cabin Republicans were hoping of negotiating a "safe" civil union for LGBT at the expense of Goodridge and Guerriero wanted to be "our savior" with his backroom deal with Romney.

History needs to be told!

Huckabee Outdistances Romney 37% to 23%

Huckabee gains

Among Iowa Republicans, the poll found that Huckabee dominates Romney and the rest of the field not only among born-again Christians and regular churchgoers but also among women and the disaffected. He was supported by 46% of women surveyed, and 44% of voters who say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Huckabee argues that the Republican Party needs to acknowledge the pocketbook anxieties of middle-class voters.

The GOP contest in Iowa is essentially a two-man race: Huckabee's 37% and Romney's 23% outdistance McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, both with 11%; and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of Alpine, Calif., who all register in single digits.

The Republican pecking order is completely different in New Hampshire, where evangelical conservatives hold less sway. There, Huckabee barely registers, backed by only 9%, while Romney leads with 34%.

But McCain has made notable gains in recent months: He has campaigned heavily there and won influential newspaper endorsements in the state, which backed him against George W. Bush in 2000. McCain has jumped into second place with 21%, up from 12% in September.

He edged out Giuliani, whose support in New Hampshire dropped 9 percentage points, to 14%.

Like Clinton, McCain may benefit if voters' concern about international affairs increases with the turmoil in Pakistan. Even in Iowa, far more Republicans say he would be the best candidate to handle foreign affairs. And when Republicans were asked if McCain was well prepared for the presidency, 78% of New Hampshire Republicans said he was.

No other candidate, in either Iowa or New Hampshire, drew such a heavy vote of confidence. But that may not be enough to sway voters who are looking for a fresh face.

"When I hear McCain, I feel comfortable that he may do a better job with the war," said Ray Buffery, a retiree in Concord, N.H., who is nonetheless supporting Romney. McCain, he said, "has been in the Senate quite awhile. [Romney] is a younger person."

janet.hook@latimes.com

[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll28dec28,0,5452139.story?page=2]

Thursday, December 27, 2007

"[Huckabee] has to Win Iowa. If he does, he will be the Favorite . . . for the Nomination"

PJB: Is It Down to Mitt and Mike?
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Not since 1952 has the nation entered a presidential year with greater seeming uncertainty as to who will face off in November.

Early that year, Tennessee Sen. Ernest Kefauver upset Harry Truman in New Hampshire, relieving the nation by dashing Harry’s hopes for another four years. The Republican race would be a titanic struggle between the Eastern Establishment’s Gen. Dwight Eisenhower and “Mr. Republican,” Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, the conservative paragon.

Splitting the primaries between them, Ike and Taft fought all the way to the convention, where Ike’s Texas delegates were seated and Bob Taft’s booted.

How important was that race? Ike would win and serve two terms. His young running mate, Richard Nixon, would be twice elected president. A dark horse for that GOP nomination, Gov. Earl Warren of California, who threw his support to Ike at a critical moment, would be named chief justice. Out of that Republican race would come the Eisenhower era, the Nixon presidency, the Warren court.

And though the 2008 GOP race may seem wide open, it is already probably down to three candidates, could be over by Jan. 4 and will probably be down to two by Jan. 9, the morning after New Hampshire.

The front-runner since spring, Rudy Giuliani, is close to toast.

By dropping out of the Iowa Straw Poll in August, Rudy ceded Iowa and the cornucopia of publicity the winner receives. He is running far behind in Iowa, sinking in New Hampshire and certain to be skunked twice by Jan. 9. If so, he will lose Michigan, then South Carolina, where he is already far behind, and Florida, his firewall, where he is now slipping behind both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

If Rudy is 0-4 going into Florida, he loses Florida. If he is 0-5 going into the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday states, his national lead will be ancient history. In some national polls, it has already vanished.

The same holds for Fred Thompson. Though Iowans were eagerly awaiting his appearance at the straw poll, Fred, too, took a pass. And though he seems ideally suited to the party, he is running so far behind in New Hampshire and Michigan it is hard to see how he survives to reach home base, South Carolina. There, he is already behind Romney and Huckabee. In New Hampshire, Fred is behind Ron Paul.

Wisely, he is headed for Iowa to put all his chips on a strong showing, hoping Romney and Huckabee will do to each other what Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean did: rip each other out of contention.

If Fred does not make a strong showing in Iowa, a prediction: He will drop out and endorse John McCain, who has a shot at repeating his 2000 win in New Hampshire. For McCain has the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe, and Rudy is pulling out of the Granite State, ceding the moderates to McCain, hoping he will stop Romney there and keep his own fading hopes alive.

If Mitt Romney wins New Hampshire, drop the curtain for Rudy, Thompson and McCain – and they know it. For if Mitt wins in New Hampshire, none of the three beats him in Michigan, they will not beat him in South Carolina, and they will not beat him in Florida.

Can McCain, who kicked away what seemed a near-certain nomination by embracing the Bush-Kennedy amnesty and stiffing the Iowa Straw Poll, win? Not impossible. If he can win New Hampshire and make himself the national alternative to Huckabee, a desperate GOP establishment might rally to him for lack of an alternative.

But McCain’s fate is not entirely in his own hands. He needs an assist. He needs Huckabee to defeat Romney in Iowa, where McCain will be waxed, then to come back and beat Romney himself in New Hampshire. Two losses by Romney in states where he has invested millions would put his campaign on life support.

But if Romney wins Iowa, he will win New Hampshire and Michigan, and go into South Carolina 3-0. If Romney wins the first two, he is almost surely the nominee. For that would eliminate Rudy, McCain and Thompson, leaving the only man able to stop him in South Carolina, a twice-defeated Mike Huckabee and his Christian prayer warriors.

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.

Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.

Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.

And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.

Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn’t that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.

[http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=901]

Romney Deliberate Deception

Romney Deliberate Deception


I don't know about you, but I was fully expecting to open up the
Boston Globe and find Kris Mineau of Mitt's, oops I mean Mass Family
Institute recounting the day he marched through the streets of Detroit
with Martin Luther King, Mitt and George Romney. When you think about
it, it all makes sense. Like Harvey the invisible rabbit, Mitt was
with us on the March to protect life, Mitt was with us on the march to
protect the sanctity of marriage, Mitt was with us on the march to
recuse our children from his sex education policies teaching young
girls to sleep with any irresponsible person that comes along while
throwing them a condom, Mitt marched with Catholics trying to obtain
our constitutional right to refer rape victims to a facility five
minutes away if they have ovulated and wish to take emergency
contraception to end a potential pregnancy. Why wouldn't they have all
marched with Martin in Detroit?

If you haven't seen today's story from CNS regarding Mitt's
circumvention of the legislative process to enact the law necessary to
make homosexual marriages legal - and Kris Mineau's tall tale about
Mitt's march to protect the sanctity of human sexuality during his
tenure as Governor, do indulge:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071227b.html

>The Romney campaign responded to requests for comment from Cybercast
News Service by sending a statement from Kris Mineau of the
Massachusetts Family Institute,

"Within hours of the November 18, 2003, Supreme Judicial Court decision
legalizing gay marriage, Governor Romney publicly denounced the court's
ruling and affirmed traditional marriage," he said. "And that was just
the beginning of his support for preserving traditional marriage.

"Governor Romney could not have been more public or vocal in his
opposition to same-sex marriage during his entire tenure as governor,"
he added.<<

Is Mineau the only one left at the bunker?

For those of you outside of Massachusetts, Mineau has been the author
of a whisper campaign alleging people who actually read the Goodridge
decision (which stated the current laws prohibiting gay marriage were
unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to change the current law
within a 180 day period to reflect their judgment) are victims of a
grand conspiracy theories.

I couldn't imagine what would motivate Mineau to mislead when the
decision was so clear. The mystery was solved when we found out
Mineau's logic coincided with donation from Romney.

Romney hasn't paid wikipedia yet, if you hurry to the link, you'll find
facts which are not in dispute when you actually read the decision,
know the law and the powers and lack thereof of various branches of
government:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health)

>>On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to
marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held
that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples
from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to change the law to
rectify the situation.<<


There's a great news story on InsideCatholic that repudiates the logic
of Romney's well-paid gargoyles quite articulately:

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2024&Itemid=48

>>But there is a lingering problem: Romney is opposed only to creating
clones for stem cell research; he is not opposed to using "discarded"
frozen embryos. These frozen embryos have been the primary source of
embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself
opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is
actually carried out?

Romney's position became even more confusing during his December 10th
interview on CBS with Katie Couric. She asked Romney whether he agreed
with using discarded frozen embryos for stem cells.

Romney replied:

Yes, those embryos are commonly referred to as surplus embryos from
in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for
adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent
decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of
research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against
the law.

My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral
entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the
scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more,
if Romney's conversion was about the "cheapened value of human life,"
how can he abide the thought of a parent donating "one of those
embryos" to be destroyed?<<

Well said by Deal Hudson -but he's too much of a gentleman to draw the
conclusion: the problem here is deliberate deception.

Merry Christmas - Blessed New Year to all,

Carol McKinley
Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Romney's Gay Mafia Christmas Present

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney?

The Gay Mafia's media attacked Huckbee for saying Merry Christmas and daring to mention Jesus during Happy Holidays season.

The Gay Mafia supports Romney and Giuliani for promoting "homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren."

What is the difference between Giuliani and Romney? Romney seems to be deeper in the pocket of the Gay Mafia. Even Giuliani seems afraid to give a "Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby."

Fred

Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy

CHICAGO, December 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro- family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro- homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith- minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro- family leaders -- who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism -- will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro- homosexual-agenda candidate."

LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro- homosexual 'orientation' laws -- long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives - to the rest of the nation.

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' -- which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro- homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

Republicans For Family Values is a website dedicated to defending pro-life and pro-natural-family principles within the GOP. For identification purposes only, LaBarbera is also president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality.


Christian Newswire

Monday, December 24, 2007

Anti-Christians Attack Christmas and Huckabee

Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad
By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer

Sunday, December 23, 2007


(12-23) 20:08 PST SAN ANTONIO (AP) --


Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made no apologies Sunday for the religious tone of a recent holiday campaign commercial and said it is important to look for Jesus at this time of year.


"You can find Santa at every mall. You can find discounts in every store," Huckabee said from the pulpit of Cornerstone Church. "But if you mention the name of Jesus, as I found out recently, it upsets the whole world. Forgive me, but I thought that was the point of the whole day."


Huckabee was referring to the ad airing in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that shows him in a red sweater in front of a Christmas tree as he asks, "Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don't blame you. At this time of year sometimes it's nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends."


"And I hope that you and your friends will have a magnificent Christmas season. And on behalf of all of us, God Bless and Merry Christmas. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message," he says in the spot.


Independent groups have criticized the ad, saying Huckabee went too far mixing politics and religion. Others took exception to the cross-like image created by a white bookcase in the background, describing it as a subliminal message.


Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has been on the defensive in recent weeks because of the ad and his rise in the polls, particularly in Iowa, where he has taken away the top spot from Republican rival Mitt Romney.


Speaking at a later church service, Huckabee said: "I got in a little trouble this last week because I actually had the audacity to say 'Merry Christmas.' Isn't that an odd thing to say at this time of year?"


Huckabee also discussed the ad during an interview on CBS'"Face the Nation" before delivering the sermons.


Asked whether he was running for president of Christian America, Huckabee said he was campaigning to be the "president of all America, to be the people's president. And that's how I served as governor."


He said the ad was put together quickly, and that book shelves formed the cross in the background.


"Everyone thought that we were so smart and clever. The truth is, it was a book shelf," Huckabee said. "We hurriedly put the spot together. It wasn't scripted. I ad-libbed the spot. It was done at the end of a long taping day, and really kind of a thought of, well, let's do a Christmas spot just in case we decide to use it maybe on our Web site."


At Cornerstone Church, Huckabee's more than 30-minute sermon to the nearly full 5,500-seat auditorium focused on the Christmas story, which he said was the "remarkable story of an unwed teenage mother."


"The great truth of Christmas is that no matter how good we are, we're not good enough to know God without the Christ," said Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. "And no matter how bad ... we are not so bad that he cannot find us."


Huckabee's campaign is trying to rally conservative Christians to help him win in early primary states, but he said his church appearance was not political.


"So while some people seem to want us to lose Jesus, I would like for us to do our best to find him," Huckabee said at the megachurch, where televangelist John Hagee is the senior pastor and founder.


Separately, The Dallas Morning News on Sunday endorsed Huckabee for the Republican presidential nomination. The newspaper said that while he is not an "ideal candidate," he "is the change agent the nation most needs."


The Morning News also endorsed Democrat Barack Obama "because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past."


Huckabee was to attend a private fundraiser in San Antonio before returning to Arkansas for the holidays.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Some Reasons we should Vote for Huckabee instead of Paul

Some Reasons we should Vote for Huckabee instead of Paul

Here are some reasons to get behind Huckabee from catholicsforhuckabee.blogspot.com.

Fred


For some reason, this year’s slot of Republicans has included a few surprisingly decent candidates, the like of which we have not seen in a long time. In fact, some of us have forgotten what a real conservative is like, after the Bushes, the Doles and the Fords. To hear candidates seriously discussing concepts like eliminating the IRS, and giving more than lip service to the pro-life cause, would have been inconceivable in the last presidential election.

However, some hard choices are going to have to be made and soon if we conservatives don’t want someone like Romney, Guiliani or Thompson to get the GOP nomination. Like it or not, we are going to have to unite behind one conservative candidate, capable of not only disposing of phonies like Romney or Guiliani, but also of going all the way to the White House in 2008.

Cong. Paul, that most venerable and courageous man, I say with great reluctance, will have to step out of the ring at some point. As much as his loyalty to the Constitution resonates with me and as much as I admire his reasonableness and integrity, I do not know if he has the ability to unite people in the way a President needs to. Also, while he is a brilliant formulator of policy and ideas, he simply does not strike me as having the skills required to handle the left-wing media, a skill which is so necessary to victory in November ‘08.

My recommendation for the great and heroic Cong. Paul: Chief of Staff or Secretary of State. What the heck, dissolve the Cabinet and put him in charge of every department in the federal government while you’re at it!

Whom are we left with? The man of the hour, of course, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
While many Catholics have seen Huckabee in the last debates and may have been favorably impressed by his eloquence and persuasive skill, they may not know his positions on all the issues.

A former Baptist minister and psychologist, Huckabee was the Governor of Arkansas for ten and a half years, the fourth Republican governor in that state since Reconstruction. Despite having a Democrat-controlled State Congress, he had a budget surplus when he left office this January and gave residents of Arkansas the first across-the board tax cut in Arkansas state history.

On the issue of the Iraq war, he has expressed his opposition to the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war," which has no basis in Catholic moral teaching. He advocates that U.S. troops in Iraq withdraw in a timely but not hasty manner. He has continually stressed the need for the nations in the Middle East to work together to solve the problems in their own region with little U.S. interference.

Among other innovative ideas, he was the first governor giving incentives for healthy living habits and mandated that Arkansas employees be allowed to take walking breaks. He has been the only candidate to talk of America’s obesity crisis and the need for health-care plans to include prevention and nutrition.

Economically, he has joined other presidential candidates Tancredo and Paul in their support of a so-called "Fair Tax," which will help us finally end the income tax and the class warfare the income tax has inspired. Huckabee has vowed to be the first American president to nail an "Out of Business" sign on the I.R.S.

Finally, his pro-life record: As a presidential candidate, he supports the type of abortion ban recently passed by Catholic South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds in 2006. In fact, South Dakota’s Gov. Mike Rounds has been active in Huckabee’s campaign. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee passed as many restrictive measures on abortion as the Democrat-controlled state legislature and the Arkansas Supreme Court would allow: waiting period regulations, the presentation of information on the abortion procedure and medical side effects, parental and spousal consent laws, and fetal homicide laws.

Governor Huckabee is a candidate that every conservative Catholic American can support in good conscience. He is pro-life, pro-family, and pro-Christian values. He is also uniquely able to reach the hearts and minds of his listeners and is able to inspire people with a new and hopeful vision of America. As seen by the favorable reaction of the secular press, even from "hard-ballers" like Chris Matthews and Steve Colbert, he is able to find common ground with almost anyone and bring them to an understanding, if not agreement, with his views. These are skills the caliber of which has not been seen in a conservative candidate since Ronald Reagan.

Most important of all, Huckabee’s genuine convictions and sincere good will elevate him miles above the big phonies like Guiliani and Romney. It’s the strangest phenomenon: once Huckabee starts to speak, those slick, big-city sophisticates start looking kind of faded and worn-out, while the man in the plain brown suit and the friendly smile somehow grows taller and more solid-looking than ever.

As Catholics, let’s unite behind this inspiring and exceptional Christian man, or the next occupant of the White House will be an enemy of Catholic values. Catholic publications like The Wanderer and The National Catholic Register need to get behind this one candidate who can quickly and surely dispose of establishment-backed politicos like Guiliani and Romney. They need to have the political sophistication to realize that splitting the pro-life/pro-family vote is a formula for defeat in 2008.
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RFdRSupiMRkJ:catholicsforhuckabee.blogspot.com/2007/08/lets-get-behind-winner.html+the+wanderer+Tom+roeser+Huckabee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]

Three Courageous Pro-Life Heroes Still in Jail

Three Courageous Pro-Life Heroes Still in Jail
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, Dec. 22 /Christian Newswire/ -- Right now, three courageous pro-life heroes - Joan Andrews-Bell, her son Emiliano, and "Lifeboat Willy" - are serving a 5-day sentence in Manchester, New Hampshire for their part in a peaceful "sit-in" outside the office of GOP Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani. They refused to pay a $240 fine, and were jailed at the rate of $50 per day.

On the day before there arrest, eleven others (myself included) were arrested for the same activities. We are free, awaiting trial.

The purpose of these arrests is simple: draw attention to Rudy Giuliani and his hard-core support of child- killing by abortion. Rudy has done a masterful job hiding his pro-death, pro-homosexual marriage agenda, and has been selling himself as a "conservative Republican."

Our efforts have proven successful thus far; major newspapers have been carrying the unfolding story, and the web is abuzz with online news and blogs about our efforts and purposes. Our intention is for this to escalate through the New Hampshire and Florida primaries, culminating with Super Tuesday (Feb 5) on which we plan to celebrate the funeral of Rudy's deceptive campaign. May it rot on the ash heap of history.

Back to Joan, Emiliano, and Willy - yet sitting in jail.

They took this bold step to fulfill the role of "prophet" and "watchmen on the wall." By the 14 arrests over 2 days and their incarceration, a laser beam was focused on the evil of Rudy's positions. God bless them for their heroism.

But beyond the New Hampshire primary, and certainly beyond Rudy, those 3 souls sitting behind bars have pointed a second laser on something for more dangerous and damning - the silence of the clergy concerning evil men and women.

Throughout the Scriptures and Church history, God's prophets and Apostles have confronted kings and queens, princes and judges, by name. God's heralds have publicly rebuked and censored errant political leaders for personal scandalous sins, as well as condemned wicked policies denying justice to the oppressed both prior to and after the birth of the Church.

John the Baptist rebuked Herod by name; Jeremiah prophesied by name to kings Jehoiakim and Zedekiah; King Ahab and Queen Jezebel were rebuked by name--boldly and publicly--by Elijah. The Biblical examples go on and on.

Most clergy and leaders of ministries in America have refused to say one public word against Rudy - or any baby-killing candidate for that matter. Like the contemptible Priest and Levite in "The Good Samaritan" they have passed by on the other side while Rudy, Hillary, Obama, and a host of other villains have lurked in the shadows - accomplices to the murder of babies in the ditch of America's abortion mills.

Today's watchmen on the wall look the other way while the wicked prosper and the innocent perish at their hands.

Why do they refuse to cry out against this evil?

Perhaps the most damning excuse - the most self- incriminating fear - used to justify the deafening silence of bishops and protestant clergy during an election cycle or during battles over pending legislation is the fear of losing the Church's "tax- exempt status."

Words cannot express the revulsion we should all feel at this excuse. Who is Lord of the Church? Caesar or Christ? Who is Lord of the Gospel? Jesus or the IRS?

In honest assessment, the tax-exempt status can only be viewed as a glorified bribe--godless hush money-- used to buy the Church's silence.

Bishops, priests, evangelical ministers and pastors, and ministry heads of every ilk have literally been told what they can and cannot say in their public ministry-- for the sake of money!

Children are being slaughtered by the millions. It is undeniable that the Church and her leaders have a duty to decry this holocaust and to actively work to end child-killing.

Thus, we need the right lawmakers in office who will vote to make child-killing illegal again. Thus, we must expose and defeat those incumbents whose hands drip with the blood of the innocent, as well as new candidates who are eager to have their hands equally soiled.

Think of the great Saints throughout history who held kings and princes accountable for their darkest deeds and heresies. Why have the rules suddenly changed because we live under the heel of the IRS tax exempt status?

Any clergyman willing to take a muzzle from the government submits his ability to preach the Gospel of Life to the government.

It grieves me to say this - but it must be said: this 59- year-old woman, sitting in jail with her handicapped 18-year-old son and a 65-year-old man, have more courage and ethical clarity than the vast majority of clergy in America when it comes to holding the "accessories to murder" accountable for their bloodshed.

Joan's last statement - before being taken to jail was this: "Christians by the thousands should be sitting in at Rudy's offices nationwide; he is no different than Joseph Stalin when it comes to killing the innocent."

She is absolutely right. But let's face it - most clergy don't have the vision to go to jail for righteousness right now. I would happily settle for them to simply say from their pulpits - and in every venue they can - that pro-choice candidates are child-killers, and that no Christian, in good conscience, may vote for them under any circumstance.

That won't get them martyred - like John the Baptist - nor incarcerated, like Joan and the Manchester 14 - but it would surely help bring this holocaust to a speedy end.


Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Randall Terry, 904-461-0834

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Patriots Dilemma

> From: ewillers@swbell.net
> [mailto:ewillers@swbell.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: ewillers@laissez-fairerepublic.com
> Subject: Patriots Dilemma
>
> THE ROAD TO REPUBLICAN REDEMPTION
> "The federal government is now an astounding 185
> times as big in real
> terms as it was a century ago. A general sense that
> Republicans have
> forgotten why they were sent to Washington is a big
> reason why the GOP
> lost control of Congress last year. The road to
> redemption has to
> include a crackdown on earmarks, which Oklahoma
> Senator Tom Coburn calls
> 'the gateway drug to higher spending in many other
> areas.'"
> - John Fund, Political Diary, 12/21/07
>
> I understand that people are frustrated with the
> Republicans. So am I.
> I think there ought to be some way to punish the
> Republicans for not
> being conservative/constitutionalist and not doing a
> better job of
> resisting the Democrats' super-statist agenda. But
> I don't see how
> giving the government over to the Democrats -- whose
> whole platform is
> for even more federal control, spending, and taxes
> -- is the smart way
> to punish the back-sliding Republicans. It's like
> cutting off our noses
> to spite our faces, to use an old cliche. If voting
> third party in a
> close election would give the Presidency to the
> Democrat Party -- a
> party controlled by the Far Left tyrannists -- that
> would result in even
> more statism, more corruption, and an even more
> disastrous foreign
> policy and defense situation, not to mention federal
> court appointments.
> That doesn't make much sense to me. There must be a
> better way to make
> Republicans more adherent to teh Constitution than
> by letting the
> Democrats burn it completely.
>
> For many decades the Establishment Left has had a
> virtual monopoly in
> the electronic national media. These days the
> "liberals" are squealing
> like stuck pigs now that their media hegemony is
> being challenged by
> some elements of talk radio and the Internet. Such
> Cliinton/Soros front
> groups as "Media Matters" are targeting Rush
> Limbaugh and others who
> dare to expose their political and cultural agenda.
> Too many people
> (including, unfortunately, some libertarians,
> patriots, and
> conservatives) are falling for the barrage of
> left-wing propaganda
> smears against Limbaugh and other alternative media
> figures. The naive
> populist types seem most vulnerable to such
> divide-and-conquer tactics.
> These are often the same folks who credit such bogus
> conspiracy theories
> (of Far Left origin) as the notion that the attacks
> of 9/11 were an
> "inside job" perpetrated by Bush and Cheney, or the
> theory that Bush and
> Cheney secretly blew up the levies to flood New
> Orleans because they
> hate Black people so much.
>
> As bad as Bush has been in his own left-wing policy
> initiatives (e.g.,
> supporting Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind
> boondoggle, pushing the
> Law of the Sea Treaty, imposing new, outrageously
> expensive transfer
> schemes, not being serious about border control,
> little or no real
> attempt to restrain federal spending, and many more
> missteps), I see
> over and over the consequences of Democrat
> administrations (federal,
> state, and local) being blamed on the allegedly
> "conservative" Bush
> administration. Yet, the conservative/libertarian
> ideas have rarely if
> ever been really tried. Will the right ideas get
> the blame for
> liberal-left policy failures? That largely depends
> on the on-gong
> propaganda war. We can only hope that as the
> Establishment Left's hold
> on the electronic media continues to wane, that more
> and more people
> will turn to alternative sources in talk radio and
> the Internet for
> their news and analysis. But as far as the
> presidential race is
> concerned, we may have to just hold our noses and
> vote Republican or
> else face a Democrat in the White House who will do
> far worse damage.
> If we want better choices in our politicians, we
> will have to help pave
> the way by exposing more people to truth in the war
> of ideas against the
> myths and lies of the reactionary Left..
>

Conservative Choice for President

--- chairman@christiancitizens.org wrote:

> Subject: Conservative Choice for President, Pat
> Buchanan http://buchanan.org web site.
>
> From the web site of Pat Buchanan, is this great
> article by Chuck Baldwin, former Vice-Presidential
> nominee of Constitutional Party.
>
> No real conservative could support GOP front runners
> like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or
> Fred Thompson. When it comes to historic
> conservative principles, each of these men is as
> phony as a three dollar bill. They are now
> attempting to cast themselves as conservatives. Mike
> Huckabee is dismal (liberal) on immigration and Big
> Brother issues.
>
> And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul’s testimony
> is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ
> as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not
> political posturing, it is a genuine personal
> commitment.
>
> Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, “I have
> never been one who is comfortable talking about my
> faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering
> that typically occurs in the election season I find
> to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I
> freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal
> Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I
> do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not
> from man, but from God. My record of public service
> reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with
> which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”
>
> Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he
> would almost certainly win the general election. His
> constitutional, common-sense ideals would be
> attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare
> say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter
> who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives,
> independents, libertarians, union members, and even
> some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in
> Iraq and Bush’s Big Brother schemes) would support
> Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican
> nomination.
>
> Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of
> Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP
> hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too
> honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too
> independent for their liking. Therefore, the only
> chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican
> nomination is for every Christian, every
> conservative, and every constitutionalist within the
> GOP to get behind him.
>
> Conservative Republicans have only one choice for
> President in 2008: Ron Paul. Read the rest of the
> article at: http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=831
>
>
> Ron Paul similar to Pat Buchanan
>
> The 2008 Presidential race appears to be a
> reenactment of the race of 1996, when conservative
> Pat Buchanan challenged the establishment candidate
> Bob Dole. Pat Buchanan placed 2nd in the Iowa Caucus
> and won the New Hampshire primary. Pat also won
> early in states like North Dakota, and Alaska. After
> the impressive win in New Hampshire, Pat was on the
> way to win the Republican nomination, but was
> derailed by constant daily attacks from the news
> media. True conservatives are rallying in mass
> around Ron Paul, their biggest chance to send a
> message to Washington. Of all the current
> candidates, Ron Paul seems to be most like Pat
> Buchanan. Even on the official web site of Pat
> Buchanan, http://www.buchanan.org Pat Buchanan
> provides a page dedicated to the Ron Paul. Read more
> at:
>
http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com/ron-paul/leader/pat-buchanan-conservative.html
>
>
> Ron Paul - Carrying the Conservative Mantel in 2008
>
> Ron Paul is the leader in winning straw polls across
> the nation. With the powerful grass roots support,
> he consistently embarrasses the news media front
> runners. Ron Paul has been endorsed by the 2004
> Constitutional Party Candidate Michael Peroutka, and
> former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr.
>
> Massive Grassroots Support For Ron Paul
>
> Described as King of the Internet. Ron Paul leads
> all candidates with the largest number of grass
> roots supporters and local organizations. Ron Paul
> has about 1,400 identified Ron Paul Meetup Groups
> across the nation, with an impressive number of
> members in the 70,000 range. No other candidate can
> come close to being that organized. You can join a
> local Ron Paul Meetup Group near you visit
> http://ronpaul.meetup.com
>
>
> Be one of 40,000 who donate to Ron Paul on December
> 16: http://www.ronpaul2008.com
>
> Get a Ron Paul yard sign or bumper sticker
> http://www.ronpaulgrassrootshq.com
>
>
> If you received this update notice in error or want
> to discontinues receiving notices please use the
> following link:
>
>
http://www.christiancitizens.org/christian/mail/signup.php?ID=98382
>
> If you do not trust remove links, just add REMOVE to
> the Subject and forward this entire message to the
> moderator at:
>
> moderator@christiancitizens.org
>
> The above link can also be used to correct name,
> change email address or signup for other
> notification notices.
>
> God Bless,
> Chairman
> www.christiancitizens.org
>
>



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Presidential Race: Tancredo Out; Giuliani Falling

Presidential Race: Tancredo Out; Giuliani Falling
Posted by Bobby Eberle
December 20, 2007 at 7:18 am
>> Printer-Friendly Version

According to news reports, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo will announce on Thursday his plans to leave the presidential race. Although his campaign never gained momentum, Tancredo can take heart in knowing that he nearly single-handedly changed the face of American political debate. Through his efforts, Tancredo took issues such as border security and illegal immigration and brought them out of the cellar and into mainstream political discourse.

When Tom Tancredo used to talk about illegal immigration, you could feel the audience collectively cringe. "He's talking about THAT issue?" people would say to themselves. Much like social security, illegal immigration was something that just wasn't discussed. However, Tancredo persevered and turned the third-rail issue of illegal immigration into the most important issue facing Americans today.


In our most recent survey of GOPUSA's Grassroots Survey Team, respondents chose "border security/immigration" as their most important issue with 43%. The next closest issue was the war on terror with 25%. Of course, we all know those issues go hand in hand. We just keep wondering when Washington "leaders" will recognize it.

As noted in the news story Tancredo to Abandon Presidential Bid:

Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-person GOP field. He has based his campaign on opposition to illegal immigration, a top issue in many areas of the country. He has run television ads that link lax border security to terrorist attacks, rape and other crimes.

Tancredo announced in October that he would not seek a sixth term in Congress, but hinted he would consider running for the Senate after his presidential bid.

Colorado will have an open Senate seat next year when Republican Wayne Allard retires.

Tancredo noted that "he became angry about illegal immigration because of bilingual education requirements in schools. He says those requirements turned out students who were illiterate in two languages."

With Tancredo out, the field narrows in what is increasingly becoming a toss-up race for the GOP presidential nomination. FOX News is reporting on a new poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC which shows former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's once sizeable national lead evaporating.

According to the poll, Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are now tied in the contest for the GOP nomination, each at 20 percent among Republicans nationally. The poll showed Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 17 percent and Sen. John McCain at 14 percent.

Last month, the same poll showed Giuliani leading with 33% followed by John McCain and Fred Thompson in a virtual tie for second (16% and 15% respectively). Romney was in third with 11%, and Huckabee was in fourth with 8%.

The news story suggests that Giuliani's personal life is having an effect on his numbers. "Just 35 percent of Republican voters gave Mr. Giuliani a high rating on having 'high personal standards that set the proper moral tone for the country.' Sixty-five percent rated McCain highly on that issue; 60 percent rated Romney highly on the question and 53 percent Huckabee."

Giuliani's slip is actually deeper than that. We are coming to "crunch time." The first primaries and caucuses are only a few weeks away. GOP voters are weighing many factors in their minds, two of which are issues and electability. In poll after poll, including GOPUSA's own survey, GOP voters believe Giuliani could be a strong president. But the fact remains that there are just too many issues in which Giuliani differs from grassroots conservative GOP voters.

This is a clear reason why Romney and Huckabee have surged to the top. Voters agree with them more on the issues. The dynamics that will be seen over the next month or so will be what happens when Huckabee's record is put under the microscope. We already see it happening. Romney has been in the spotlight, so his record has received much more scrutiny. Huckabee has flown under the radar, but now, his actions are coming to light.

The early primaries will indeed reveal much, and more than any other recent election, almost anyone can gain momentum and shake things up. McCain has garnered the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman and the leading New Hampshire newspaper. Congressman Ron Paul raised over $6 million in one day including including $500 from a know white supremacist. He has plenty of money to hammer the airwaves in the early states. If Romney can come out of Iowa and New Hampshire as the leader, I believe he can unite conservatives around him and eventually emerge as the nominee. So much will play out in the next few weeks.

[http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=627]

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Questions Republican Candidates Should Answer

Questions Republican Candidates Should Answer
December 19, 2007 by Phyllis Schlafly
Why are questions about Communist China asked only in the Democratic presidential debates? We want to know what the Republican candidates plan to do about China sending us poisoned foods and toys.
All presidential candidates should be asked what they plan to do about the fact that free trade with China means acquiescing in gross discrimination against U.S. products and jobs. The Chinese avoid a level trading field by artificially undervaluing their currency up to 40 percent, subsidizing their products, and imposing import duties against U.S. products that are ten times higher than tariffs on their products in U.S. stores.

Our free-trade negotiators routinely accept trade agreements that give other countries the right to charge higher tariffs than we charge for similar products. For example, the Chinese Chery car will face a 2.5 percent tariff when sold in the U.S., but U.S. autos entering China will be taxed at 25 percent.

Foreign countries get by with this discrimination by calling it a Value Added Tax (VAT) instead of a tariff, but it amounts to just as high a barrier against free trade. The result is that millions of American jobs have moved overseas.

All presidential candidates ought to be asked what they plan to do about China's organized theft of our intellectual property and counterfeiting of our products. Communist China is the world's top producer of illegal copies of music, movies, software, designer clothes, and medicines.

All candidates should be asked what they plan to do about China putting its billion dollars of profits from U.S. trade into military weaponry to threaten, not only Taiwan, but the United States, especially our communication satellites.

The toy advertised by Wal-Mart as the top toy of the season had to be recalled after it was discovered that children in Texas, Delaware, New Hampshire, Illinois and Utah fell sick and were hospitalized because of swallowing the toy's bead-like parts. After 4.2 million were recalled, China finally admitted that the beads in this toy, called Aqua Dots, contained a substance that can turn into the "date-rape" drug after children swallow them.

That drug, gamma-hydroxy butyrate, causes breathing problems, loss of consciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma, and death. Aqua Dots were supposed to have been coated with a nontoxic chemical, but that chemical costs three or four times the price of the poisonous compound, so the Chinese manufacturer couldn't resist using the cheaper product.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website, 26 million toys and other products made in China have been recalled by U.S. companies since August. Even the Boy Scouts of America had to recall a million Chinese-made plastic badges that contained unsafe amounts of lead.

Chinese products for children found to contain unacceptable levels of lead include vinyl baby bibs, Thomas the Tank Engine sets, Baby Einstein Discover & Play Color Blocks, Pirates of the Caribbean medallion squeeze lights, Totally Me! Funky Room Decor Sets, Hannah Montana handbags, and Barbie doll accessories.

Australia recalled hundreds of blankets imported from China in October because they contained formaldehyde up to ten times the level permissible under international standards. The World Heath Organization has classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.

Seafood from China is a potentially more dangerous import. About 80 percent of seafood consumed by Americans is imported, and the Food and Drug Administration inspects and tests only one percent.

Lab tests show that China uses antibiotics to treat fish raised in filthy waters where bacteria, viruses and parasites breed. Lab testers say that when seafood is rejected for an illegal chemical, the Chinese simply switch to another harmful chemical.

Often found in imported fish is a fungicide called malachite green, which is illegal to use in food in the U.S. because studies show it can cause cancer and birth defects.

Alabama has its own tests and rejects 50 to 60 percent of all fish imports. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture Ron Sparks personally visited Asia to witness seafood farmed in sewage.

Chinese products are so cheap because the workers in Guangdong, where most of the Chinese toys are made, are primarily females age 17 to 25 who work an average of 16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, for about $50 per month. They live in unhealthy, overcrowded dormitories, where a bed is all they have of their own.

With the 2008 Olympic games coming soon, Communist China is stepping up its censorship under the official slogan "constructing a harmonious society." Visitors who click on China's largest Internet site, called Sina.com, are greeted by two cute cartoon police figures, one male and one female, who pop up on their screens every 30 minutes.

These images link to the Communist internet police in order to report any information the government might deem illegal. It's important for Americans to realize that China is still a very Communist and anti-American country.
Read this column online.


Eagle Forum
www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909
E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org




-- The following information is a reminder of your current mailing list subscription:
You are subscribed to the following list: Eagle E-Mail

Using the following email: mrtnzfred@aol.com

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list at any time by visiting the following URL:



The following physical address is associated with this mailing list:


Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
618-462-5415

Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail

"Hijacking Medical Ethics" and "Mass Deception" for Abortion

"Hijacking Medical Ethics" and "Mass Deception" for Abortion

mhichborn@all.org writes:
A cheap shot from ACOG

By Judie Brown



The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is once again attempting to hijack medical ethics. Because of ACOG’s history of mass deception, which I will detail in the paragraphs to follow, this latest action should not have surprised me. But because of the organization’s growing audacity, its most recent pronouncement shocked even me.

The political effort to protect so-called reproductive medicine has led ACOG to the conclusion, according to its Committee on Ethics, that even when healthcare providers have moral concerns about a decision a patient has made, they may not allow those concerns to translate into a refusal to provide a “service” or a prescription to that patient.

If one examines this premise and the committee’s language, it becomes painfully clear that the target for the statement is the Christian medical community. For example, in the ACOG statement, we find the following:

When conscientious refusals conflict with moral obligations that are central to the ethical practice of medicine, ethical care requires either that the physician provide care despite reservations or that there be resources in place to allow the patient to gain access to care in the presence of conscientious refusal.

In other words, if the physician is unwilling to perform an abortion because he has ethical problems with the practice, that physician is obligated to refer the patient to someone who will perform the abortion. The reason for this is, according to the committee, that such an act – the abortion – is part of the ethical practice of medicine. While this may sound reasonable in the morally relativistic culture in which we all live, it is actually a slap in the face of reason and common sense.

Abortion is an act that results in death – the death of a human being. It is not the doctor who refuses to kill who should be the focus of such ethical studies and commentaries, but rather the doctor who has the ability to kill without batting an eyelash. But due to the flimflam that runs throughout the fabric of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ rubric, quite the contrary is true. After all, the act of abortion is protected by law in the United States.

But history shows that ACOG is always at the forefront of promoting concepts that will later be affirmed in law.

When it became clear to ACOG’s leadership in the 1960s, for example, that the birth control pill would be a boon to their patients, to population control and to their wallets, they went to great pains to redefine when pregnancy occurs and when the child’s life actually begins. In the ACOG Terminology Bulletin #1, dated September 1965, the following definitions appear:

o FERTILIZATION is the union of spermatozoon and ovum

o CONCEPTION is the implantation of a fertilized ovum. ‘This definition has been selected deliberately because union of sperm and ovum, cannot be detected clinically unless implantation occurs.’

The reason given in defense of the new definition of conception is bogus. The very date of the bulletin makes that obvious to anyone familiar with the history of the birth control pill. The FDA had approved the birth control pill in 1960 and concerns were being raised about how that pill might work. Thus it was in the best interests of ACOG’s membership to study the manner in which they might successfully ease the concerns about early-day abortion and increase their income, all in one fell swoop.

In the Declaration of Life (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10678), signed by hundreds of pro-life physicians, the point is made that, during the discussions about the inaccurate definitions, there was debate within the group:

Not everyone accepted these manipulations. Dr. Richard Sosnowski said he was troubled: “... that, with no scientific evidence to validate the change, the definition of conception as the successful spermatic penetration of an ovum was redefined as the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It appears to me that the only reason for this was the dilemma produced by the possibility that the intrauterine contraceptive device might function as an abortifacient.”

Sadly, the forces of greed and deception won the day and ACOG successfully denied the existence of the child during the first eight days of his life within his mother.

The intervening 40-plus years have witnessed unknown numbers of silent deaths because doctors have refused to be honest. Expectant mothers have unwittingly aborted their own babies by the chemicals they ingested and the devices they utilized. As a result, big pharmaceutical companies have grown exponentially into financially profitable giants.

But who would have guessed, even in 1965, that the day would come when members of the medical profession would be placed in the position of choosing between career and moral conscience? Well, that time has arrived.

ACOG claims that if a woman wishes to exercise her “right” to pay a doctor to kill her baby, then it is the professional responsibility of the physician to carry out her demand. The statement claims that “‘a collective obligation does not mean that all members of the profession are forced to violate their own consciences.’” But the same statement also says systems must be in place to provide counseling and referral, “particularly in resource-poor areas where conscientious refusals have significant potential to limit patient choice, and that individuals and institutions ‘act affirmatively to protect patients from unexpected and disruptive denials of service.’”

The statement cites the emergency room scenario as one example of places where physicians who have a moral problem with the morning-after pill should simply not be present. It goes on to say that institutions such as Catholic hospitals, which have doctrinal objections, “should not position themselves as primary providers of emergency care for victims of sexual assault.”

The committee’s answer to the moral dilemma faced by the doctor who does not wish to kill a preborn child is totally unacceptable. The doctor who has such conscience problems is not going to be able to live with himself if he refers his two patients—mother and preborn child – to another doctor who will kill one of them. So where will that put the physician with a commitment to protect and respect human dignity? Only time will tell.

But this is where the examples provided by ACOG’s history really trouble me.

In 1965, when ACOG forced a new definition of pregnancy on the unsuspecting world, there was no hue and cry either from the Catholics in the medical profession or from the Catholic bishops of the United States. There was no definitive critique indicating that such a definition was false, misleading and completely political in nature. There was no demand that Catholics in health care stand up and defy the ridiculous inanity ACOG was propagating.

Now, in 2007, we have to ask: Will those in a position to lead a charge against this debacle do so? Will they assure that the statement of ACOG’s ethics committee receives the public denunciation it deserves? Will Catholic doctors rise up and say no? Will Catholic pharmacists defy the statement and work with doctors to reverse it? Will Catholic bishops demand that the statement be challenged, even in court, if need be?

When all is said and done, the ACOG committee’s statement is but another in a continuing series of cheap shots against God, the Creator of every human being, and it could not have come at a more opportune time for Christians to decry it. But as I sit by and read the news, I wonder if I will find a single rebuke of ACOG’s position, especially from the very people chosen to serve as God’s shepherds.

Cheap shots must be challenged. I fear for the babies and the doctors, for the families that will be devastated and for the nation that will fall further into the clutches of evil if, once again, good men and women do nothing.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Barack Obama = Planned Parenthood

Barack Obama Has Cozy Relationship With Pro-Abortion Planned Parenthood

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is getting renewed attention from voters and has caught pro-abortion rival Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

While some voters appreciate his fresh perspective, Obama has a long-standing relationship with the nation's leading abortion business.

As LifeNews.com profiled earlier, Clinton has attacked Obama for voting present on several abortion-related bills while he was a member of the Illinois state legislature.

Yet, those votes came only because he worked intimately with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council in a concerted effort to try to defeat the pro-life bills.

The Council's CEO Pam Sutherland talked about the cozy relationship her group had with Obama during a July ABC News interview. She said Obama voted present on bills related to partial-birth abortions, parental notification, and providing medical care for newborns who survive botched abortions "with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council."

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Sutherland said of Obama's voting record and admitted that, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy." "Obama made sure those bills got as few votes as possible for passage," she added.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Police Attack Pro-lifers In Shocking Display of Abuse

From: Operation Rescue
To: kmgianotti@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Action Item: Police Attack Pro-lifers In Shocking Display of Abuse

Police Attack Pro-lifers In Shocking Display of Abuse

Rancho Cucamonga, CA - Three members of the Survivors were arrested on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, on Chaffey College campus in Rancho Cucamonga, California, in one of the most egregious displays of police misconduct that we have heard about in years.

The three young men, Joey Cox, and brothers James and Jason Conrad, were on campus to obtain permits for a pro-life outreach at the college. They had learned through many experiences to record their dealings for their protection. At Chaffey, the young men had both video and audio recorders running.

In this instance, college police objected to the taping. Without warning, and without identifying themselves as officers, Joey was attacked, shoved to the ground, and his audio recorder forcibly removed from his pocket. Joey saw the officers attempting to erase the recording.

The officers verbally abused and mocked the young men for their pro-life beliefs. To his disgrace, an officer named Tran called Joey a "retard." Joey was escorted off campus without charges at that time, however, his recorder and other property were never returned to him. He was given no receipt.

Jason and James were placed under arrest, cuffed, then roughed up by the officers, who made efforts to hide their actions from other Survivor members who were attempting to document what was happening. Officers endangered them by transporting them without seat belts and with full heaters blasting on a warm day with the purpose of causing additional physical discomfort. They were held for two days on felony "eavesdropping" charges, even though the videotaping was being done in a public place. Later the charges were reduced to misdemeanor charges of obstructing a police officer and disturbing the peace. Joey was charged with trespassing and released.

The three Survivors were doing nothing but attempting to arrange for a pro-life outreach within their First Amendment rights. In return, they were battered, bruised, abused, and robbed, in what seems like a clear case of bigotry and abuse of power.

Click here to watch video of the arrests. You will see the rough treatment and efforts by police to prevent any documentation of their actions.

Operation Rescue has often worked with the Survivors and we know these young men. We were so shocked to hear of their appalling treatment that we asked the Survivors what we could do to help.

They asked us all to make phone calls to the Chaffey College Police Department. Joey's audio recorder is still missing. It is unknown if the recording is still intact. Please ask them to return the audio recorder to Charles Cox (Joey's legal name), and feel free to voice your opinion as well.

Chaffey College Police Department
Phone number: (909) 652-6632

Friday, December 14, 2007

"We will tear down the conservative facade that Rudy has built"

'Stop Rudy!' Campaign Begins in New Hampshire; Picketing, Leafleting, and More
MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- On Dec 17-19 and Jan 4-8, Randall Terry and volunteers from several states and New Hampshire will expose "the real Rudy" in a series of events in Manchester, Concord, and Portsmouth.

"We will tear down the conservative facade that Rudy has built - to keep him from lying and seducing his way into the White House." Randall Terry

What: Public Pickets and Leafleting in front of Giuliani Headquarters (and nearby) in Manchester, Concord, and Portsmouth - daytime, Dec 17th -19th

Public Meetings: 7-9 pm, Dec 17 and 18 at Caesario's Restaurant, 1057 Elm Street, Manchester NH

Who: 20+ volunteers from several states working with New Hampshire residents

Statement from Randall Terry:

"Some say, 'Mr. Terry, you are from Florida; others are from various states. Why are you coming to New Hampshire?'

"Answer: New Hampshire is America's primary. What happens in New Hampshire will affect every voter in America.

"Americans from all 50 states are already active in New Hampshire through their contributions. Money raised nationwide is spent in New Hampshire. The money spent to win in New Hampshire also gives a candidate momentum and credibility in future primaries.

"If a candidate does poorly in New Hampshire, he could be doomed in the rest of the nation; it hurts his fund-raising, his volunteers, his media coverage - everything he or she does - from coast to coast.

What happens in New Hampshire affects us in our own states. Therefore, we must stop Rudy in New Hampshire."

The facts:


Rudy opposes the Second Amendment; your right to keep and bear arms.
Rudy cancelled the Catholic Church's St. Patrick's Day parade because parade leaders would not let homosexual floats in the parade. Federal Court gave back the permit.
Rudy marched in obscene homosexual parades in NYC that included pedophiles.
Rudy supports "homosexual unions." When the Massachusetts Court ordered homosexual marriage, NY Mayor Blumberg (with Rudy Giuliani standing beside him) held a press conference in support for the decision and calling for homosexual marriage in New York. Rudy applauded like a high school cheerleader.
Rudy is hard core pro-abortion; Here are the facts:
- Rudy wants our tax money to pay for abortion. He was on CNN and said that "as long as it is [abortion] is a right, then the poor should have the same access as everyone else."
- Rudy spoke out AGAINST the laws that outlawed the gruesome practice of "partial birth abortion."
- He said he would NOT sign a law to outlaw abortion.
- Rudy Giuliani was a Democrat for most of his adult life. During the Reagan Revolution he switched parties but retained his left wing agenda.

Do we want the former Mayor of the most liberal city in America to be our President?!

To schedule an interview with Randall Terry call 904- 461-0834.


Christian Newswire