Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Abortion clinic sign: “Use deadly force only if necessary” - Jill Stanek
Sometimes, when we are really really lucky, the proabortion side shows its true colors. We could not have asked for a better representation than this foul-mouthed, Godless, uneducated, loud, and unkempt example of the face of the baby killers.
Abortion clinic sign: “Use deadly force only if necessary” - Jill Stanek
Abortion clinic sign: “Use deadly force only if necessary” - Jill Stanek
Friday, December 30, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Film 180
Perhaps the most emotional 33 minutes of my lifetime. You simply must watch this film if you respect life.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Missing Faces at Fingerpainting Time
Yesterday I bought my great-granddaughter a set of fingerpaints. She will be 2 next month. I simply adore her. I remember how my children and grandchildren loved to fingerpaint. I found myself thinking, as I was taking pictures, of the missing faces of grandchildren I would never be able to teach or enjoy the simple childhood pleasures. Those were the faces of the children my two daughters had aborted. I did not know at the time how this would affect me in the future. I did not support their choices, but they did not seek my advice. Through the years, it has been a subject never talked about. But I do think about it from time to time and the older I get, the more I think about missing faces and opportunities. As I write this, the almost 2-year-old paints quietly and intently in the kitchen, her pictures all spread out, the prerequisite handprint with the date set aside to be framed later. Still I am haunted by the little hands I never got to imprint, the little lives never brought to term, and I am saddened beyond words at the loss. And I wonder if there are others out there who feel the same sense of loss at the missing faces.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
New Jersey Governor Christie Takes on Teacher in Townhall Meeting
This is simply brilliant! First of all the teachers unions are a liberal bunch of whiners, much as this teacher and their "woes" are self-created, just as Governor Christie outlines.
The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment
The New Congress Will Consider Impeachment
In the local newspaper today, the following column appeared written by Floyd and Mary Brown/Cagle Cartoons. I have to say, they speak for me. Please click on link above to read the entire article. At the bottom of the article is a link to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Please take a moment and do so. As Mr. Brown says, our nation depends on it!
NEXT CONGRESS COULD HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON ITS AGENDA
Floyd and Mary Brown
The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.
Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.
More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.
Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.
Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.
Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.
The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.
Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.
Here’s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered… so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior.
In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”
And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.
The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
In the local newspaper today, the following column appeared written by Floyd and Mary Brown/Cagle Cartoons. I have to say, they speak for me. Please click on link above to read the entire article. At the bottom of the article is a link to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Please take a moment and do so. As Mr. Brown says, our nation depends on it!
NEXT CONGRESS COULD HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON ITS AGENDA
Floyd and Mary Brown
The new Congress elected in November will surprise everyone. They will seriously consider impeaching Barack Obama.
Growing under the radar of the mainstream media is a movement that is gathering momentum.
More than one million citizens have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Congress to impeach Barack Hussein Obama. Some of the soon-to-be-elected members of Congress are amongst those who have signed up, and they are not about to be cowered by establishment Republicans scared silly of the issue.
Ultimately, it comes down to a commonly shared belief amongst Tea Party activists that Barack Obama is systematically trying to hurt America. Obama, the argument goes, is not an incompetent boob in over his head. Nor is he is not some well-meaning community organizer who has seen his plans go astray.
Barack Obama is a dishonest, manipulative liar who actually is pursuing an agenda that he hopes will take America off the international leadership stage. He wants America to fail so that the vision of internationalist socialists can be realized. America is hated by the elite intellectuals of the world because we have been the single biggest roadblock to their plans to establish a one world governing system with them in charge.
Americans has consistently rejected socialism. Whether it is Hillarycare or Obamacare, Americans are speaking with a loud, clear voice against socialism.
The Left hates America because of our belief in God, our belief in rugged individualism, our belief in private property, and our belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
It is only through impeachment that the new Congress can send Barack Obama a clear and unambiguous message that he does not have carte blanche to run roughshod over America.
Impeachment is the political tool given by the Founders to correct abuse by a president. Impeachment is often misunderstood because of confusion about what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense.
Former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, said an impeachable offense was “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.
Here’s a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Constitution:
“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment – treason and bribery – were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered… so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior.
In other words, “high crimes and misdemeanors” does not refer to a criminal act, as some would lead you to believe. Our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the president for actions which are gross incompetence, gross negligence, outright distasteful, or in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show “malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”
And for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that impeaching Barack Obama would be a simple matter of “playing politics,” the Founders fully intended that the impeachment of a sitting president be a political act.
The Founding Fathers deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment.
The Obama administration qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior.
Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history.
Impeachment, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.
Pro-Life Women on the Rise by Kathryn Lopez, National Review On line
Pro-Life Women on the Rise
By Kathryn Lopez | September 18th, 2010
Christine O’Donnell was ecstatic on election night. The winner of the Republican primary in Delaware was happy and beaming and passionate — she’s a natural in front of television cameras — as she celebrated her unconventional win. Watching that image, Chris Matthews on “Hardball” announced, “I think she beats out Carly Fiorina in the likeability department.”
I suppose it depends what your meaning of likable is. I like candidates who know who they are and appear completely comfortable in their own political skin. That pretty well describes Fiorina, the Republican nominee for Senate in California.
But Matthews was onto something undeniable. While Fiorina was one of the original “Mamma grizzlies” endorsed by Sarah Palin and the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, the image doesn’t quite seem to fit for the former CEO. She’s not a perky takedown artist from Delaware. She’s not an exotic (to us lower 48ers) lipsticked pit bull from Alaska. She isn’t easily labeled.
Hers is a “a solid, conservative economic message that find common ground with the independent women voters on economic issues for the general election,” as Mercedes Schlapp, mother of four girls, media consultant and veteran of the George W. Bush administration, sees it. And Fiorina also happens to be a pro-life, pro-marriage conservative, running against, three-term incumbent Barbara Boxer, a foremost advocate of legal abortion. But Fiorina doesn’t make those the most prominent aspects of her campaign. She simply seeks to bring her life experience to the political table in service of the people of California.
“Carly is not running away from her views, but chooses to stay focused on the issues that matter most to voters,” Marty Wilson, her campaign manager, explains. “Because of Carly’s background as a business leader, she is afforded the best of both worlds. Values voters are comforted by her views, and economic conservatives can be assured that she won’t support new taxes and believes the unbridled growth must be halted.”
That dynamic played out in the candidates’ first debate. Sen. Boxer hyperbolically thundered: “If my opponent’s views prevailed (on abortion), women and doctors would be criminals, they would go to jail. Women would die, like they did before Roe v. Wade.” But Fiorina calmly and beautifully explained that her own family life brought her to her position. She added that she recognizes “that not everyone agrees with me on this.” And reminded voters “I recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control.” She went on, again in response to a question, to defend and explain why she opposes federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research. Fiorina gave a plug for more promising adults-stem-cell research and didn’t miss the opportunity note that: “Senator Boxer voted against a ban on human cloning.” It’s hard to cast anyone else as extreme, as Boxer has, with that record.
Fiorina used the debate as a teachable moment, not just a battle of sound bites. And it wasn’t just pro-life me who was impressed. A Los Angeles Times review gave her high marks for her grace under fire.
And while Boxer, funded by Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List (a group that supports female pro-choice politicians and candidates) obviously thinks she can demonize Fiorina on these issues, it’s not clear her strategy will have traction, even in California this year.
“In most polls, the race is a statistical tie,” John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, observes, calling it “remarkable.” “Though Republicans have sometimes done well in races for state government offices, California has long favored Democrats for federal office. No Republican candidate for president or U.S. Senate has won here since 1988.”
It’s remarkable because Fiorina is being outspent. It’s remarkable because Fiorina is not running left or away from her staunchly held social positions. “Fiorina is doing well because California’s economic woes are causing many voters to question the policies that Barbara Boxer supports,” Pitney surmises.
Fiorina’s strategy resembles Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s race in Virginia last year. His opposition tried to paint him as a right-wing Neanderthal. But as far as he was concerned, the race was about jobs, education, and transportation — it’s what Virginia needed in a gubernatorial candidate. McDonnell not only won in the purple commonwealth, he won 51 percent of full-time, outside of the home, working women — even as his opposition insisted on emphasizing and demonizing a graduate paper he wrote on traditional gender roles.
Rest of the article can be read here
By Kathryn Lopez | September 18th, 2010
Christine O’Donnell was ecstatic on election night. The winner of the Republican primary in Delaware was happy and beaming and passionate — she’s a natural in front of television cameras — as she celebrated her unconventional win. Watching that image, Chris Matthews on “Hardball” announced, “I think she beats out Carly Fiorina in the likeability department.”
I suppose it depends what your meaning of likable is. I like candidates who know who they are and appear completely comfortable in their own political skin. That pretty well describes Fiorina, the Republican nominee for Senate in California.
But Matthews was onto something undeniable. While Fiorina was one of the original “Mamma grizzlies” endorsed by Sarah Palin and the pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, the image doesn’t quite seem to fit for the former CEO. She’s not a perky takedown artist from Delaware. She’s not an exotic (to us lower 48ers) lipsticked pit bull from Alaska. She isn’t easily labeled.
Hers is a “a solid, conservative economic message that find common ground with the independent women voters on economic issues for the general election,” as Mercedes Schlapp, mother of four girls, media consultant and veteran of the George W. Bush administration, sees it. And Fiorina also happens to be a pro-life, pro-marriage conservative, running against, three-term incumbent Barbara Boxer, a foremost advocate of legal abortion. But Fiorina doesn’t make those the most prominent aspects of her campaign. She simply seeks to bring her life experience to the political table in service of the people of California.
“Carly is not running away from her views, but chooses to stay focused on the issues that matter most to voters,” Marty Wilson, her campaign manager, explains. “Because of Carly’s background as a business leader, she is afforded the best of both worlds. Values voters are comforted by her views, and economic conservatives can be assured that she won’t support new taxes and believes the unbridled growth must be halted.”
That dynamic played out in the candidates’ first debate. Sen. Boxer hyperbolically thundered: “If my opponent’s views prevailed (on abortion), women and doctors would be criminals, they would go to jail. Women would die, like they did before Roe v. Wade.” But Fiorina calmly and beautifully explained that her own family life brought her to her position. She added that she recognizes “that not everyone agrees with me on this.” And reminded voters “I recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control.” She went on, again in response to a question, to defend and explain why she opposes federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research. Fiorina gave a plug for more promising adults-stem-cell research and didn’t miss the opportunity note that: “Senator Boxer voted against a ban on human cloning.” It’s hard to cast anyone else as extreme, as Boxer has, with that record.
Fiorina used the debate as a teachable moment, not just a battle of sound bites. And it wasn’t just pro-life me who was impressed. A Los Angeles Times review gave her high marks for her grace under fire.
And while Boxer, funded by Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List (a group that supports female pro-choice politicians and candidates) obviously thinks she can demonize Fiorina on these issues, it’s not clear her strategy will have traction, even in California this year.
“In most polls, the race is a statistical tie,” John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, observes, calling it “remarkable.” “Though Republicans have sometimes done well in races for state government offices, California has long favored Democrats for federal office. No Republican candidate for president or U.S. Senate has won here since 1988.”
It’s remarkable because Fiorina is being outspent. It’s remarkable because Fiorina is not running left or away from her staunchly held social positions. “Fiorina is doing well because California’s economic woes are causing many voters to question the policies that Barbara Boxer supports,” Pitney surmises.
Fiorina’s strategy resembles Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s race in Virginia last year. His opposition tried to paint him as a right-wing Neanderthal. But as far as he was concerned, the race was about jobs, education, and transportation — it’s what Virginia needed in a gubernatorial candidate. McDonnell not only won in the purple commonwealth, he won 51 percent of full-time, outside of the home, working women — even as his opposition insisted on emphasizing and demonizing a graduate paper he wrote on traditional gender roles.
Rest of the article can be read here
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
9/11 and the Pentagon
Often when speaking or hearing about 9/11, only the Twin Towers are mentioned. However, some ways away, innocent Americans were killed as they went about their daily duties at the Pentagon. One of them was Melissa Rose Barnes, the daughter of a dear friend, who I had known since she was a young girl. Melissa was a blessing in her mother's life and in the lives of those who knew her. Devoted to her family, dedicated to her service in the U.S. Navy, she was a sweet and dear girl. I have pictures of her through the years. She would call me once in a while and share the events of her life. Several times, she sent pictures of her home, her pets, her in her uniform performing her duties. In the video here, you can see her picture at 54 seconds. Melissa Rose Barnes, rest in peace. We have not forgotten you.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
John Cusack calls for "Satanic Death" of Fox News & GOP leaders
I used to like John Cusack, though I learned of he and his sister's extreme liberal leanings years ago and chose to stop watching his movies. I respect his right to free speech; however, calling for the death of someone goes beyond the pale of free speech. I agree that it is this sort of rhetoric that could push an unstable person to do something horrible. Remember when Alec Baldwin made his fist-pounding statement that Henry Hyde should be stoned to death during the Clinton impeachment hearings? I remember.
John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders
By Jo Piazza
Published August 31, 2010 | FoxNews.com
fox news
Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.
Cusack has long been outspoken about politics. He supported Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and has contributed to The Huffington Post, but this is the first known time he has stooped to the level of making threats.
And while the U.S. Constitution protects Cusack's right to speak his mind, some critics say he should be more careful about what he says, since he has more than 200,000 Twitter followers.
“His provocative tweets could easily incite a rabid fan to commit violent acts against Fox News Headquarters and others he names," said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist and author of "Coping With Terrorism: Dreams Interrupted."
"Fans could not only be influenced because of their devotion to Cusack, the man, but also because of their love for one of the characters he plays,” she told Fox411.
Cooper Lawrence, the author of “Cult of Celebrity” told Fox 411: “The fear isn't that a celebrity will influence someone to do something violent or out of character due to the sheer devotion to the celebrity, the fear is that someone who is already vulnerable, mentally disturbed, already considering something dangerous, may be encouraged to do so if it is advocated by their favorite star,”
Lawrence explained that while celebrities don't make healthy people do things they wouldn't normally do, they could impact someone who is on the fence or mentally unstable.
“John Cusack has to know that his words carry weight because he is an actor beloved by many generations of folks who may not get his humor and might think he is calling for something more sinister. The responsibility is on him to not abuse his fame to influence something negative on the off chance that even one person takes his words to heart,” Lawrence said.
Cusack could also be doing his career some damage. Image consultant Michael Sands says that Cusack should be worried that his vituperative words could turn off some of his fans.
The remainder of the article can be read here
Obama press secretary Gibbs refuses to answer if Obama will credit Bush for surge in upcoming speech
From this video we can gather that Gibbs can count...and that what he is truly counting is the number of times he refuses to answer the question. I like Gretchen's "cute" comment at the end though.
The Lunacy of the Far Left from Huffington Post
Following the Restoring Honor gathering in Washington, Beau Friedlander published this at HuffPo. Note how he thinks the Mormons reverance for women is sickening but never mentions the treatment of Muslim women under Sharia.
Glenn Beck responds!
The above is courtesy of ResistNet.com which may be accessed here
Huffington Poster Offers $100,000 for Nonexistent Glenn Beck Sex Tape
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:19 ET
CRITICAL UPDATES AT END OF ARTICLE: HuffPo pulls piece, Beck responds.
A Huffington Post contributor and former editor of the failed liberal radio network Air America is offering $100,000 for a nonexistent sex tape featuring Glenn Beck.
"Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers are happy to throw money at the rising tide of right wing lunacy," wrote Beau Friedlander at HuffPo Monday.
"Breitbart offered $100,000 for JournoList, the email listserve that brought down WaPo blogger Dave Weigel this June," he continued.
"Why did they do it?" he asked.
His answer was as offensive as his despicable offer (h/t @MelissaTweets aka Melissa Clouthier):
Because they stand to make a lot of money off the anti-black president movement, and they are rich enough to imprint their beliefs on the American sheeple.
The bio for this miscreant reads:
Beau Friedlander is a writer living in Brooklyn. He was the editor-in-chief of Air America until it closed in 2010, and is the former publisher of Context Books, an award-winning small press.
He is currently working on a book proposal called The Bunker Mentality, which takes on the conservative movement with lessons learned from his time at Air America, and as the publisher of War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know by former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt.
His work can be found in the Los Angeles Times, The Paris Review, and other publications.
His piece predictably went after "Tea Baggers":
In cultural terms, the original neoconservatives who birthed the baggers were way more frightened by the Broadway musical "Hair" than the film "Rosemary's Baby" (both from 1968). A mock ad might go like this: "Afraid your daughter might hook up with a black guy (or the nation may choose one to be president)? Have a problem with that h***sexual and or promiscuous son or daughter? Does your son need a haircut? Do you often find biblical characters charred into your toast? Then do we have the movement for you!"
Then, to the typical liberal attack on Beck:
Glenn Beck is also a Mormon. It matters. His religion typifies the noble lie that the neocons originally set out to defend against the counterculture--Archie Bunker's America--where a woman's place was in the home and with baby, and an African American's place was in a ghetto. (Mormons revere women much like Hindis do the cow, and they didn't accept African Americans in their ranks at all till 1978--draw whatever inferences you like). [...]
It is time to pop the tea baggers' favorite balloon (so what if it will be replaced by another?), and with that in mind I hereby offer to negotiate a $100,000 payday to the person who will come forward with a sex tape or phone records or anything else that succeeds in removing Glenn Beck from the public eye forever. I am not offering the cash myself, but I will broker the deal and/or raise the money for what you bring to the table. (And it better be good.)
If you have the goods, or if you want to contribute to a slush fund to buy more takedowns (probably not tax deductible), please contact me at: glennbecksextape@gmail.com
Glenn Beck responds!
The above is courtesy of ResistNet.com which may be accessed here
Restoring Honor August 28, 2010
Enjoy this great slideshow from Restoring Honor gathering. Enjoy it here because the MSM refused to even cover it, other than to point out repeatedly that it was a mainly "white" event. Sickening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)