FRC: Urge "NO" Vote on Pro-Abortion Governor; Me: Magnify Your Efforts

The following is from the Family Research Council. You all know that Obama has filled his Cabinet with people with ethical challenges. They fly through without any major challenges. It seems that we are fighting against the wind as we write, call, fax our opposition to the many actions by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and friends.

I have a suggestion. Rather than JUST sending petitions to Washington D.C. and contacting our elected representatives, let's also contact every media outlet we can imagine. Not just this time, but every time you have a concern.

If you call your Senator, call the local news stations, too. If you write your Congressman, write every media outlet you can find (radio, television, newspaper, etc.). Duplicate everything you do ten-fold.

They're saying the opposition isn't there. They're ignoring our pleas for ethical representation. They're treating us like pesky flies that can be swatted away. Let's show them.

Magnify everything you do.

Get the addresses for every media outlet you can find and make sure you copy them when you send your letters. Get the email addresses of every national and local news outlet you can dig up and copy them on every email you send in protest.

Let's overwhelm them. Let's make it impossible for them to ignore us or swat us away.

Here's the email on Sebelius. We need to do everything possible to stop her from being confirmed. Time is short.

Time is running out to stop the confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be President Obama's Secretary of Heath and Human Service. A floor vote in the U.S. Senate is imminent and your signature is urgently needed on our petition to block this nominee. Gov. Sebelius has compiled a record that is anti-woman and anti-life, yet President Obama has chosen her not only to lead the federal government's largest agency but to oversee a massive expansion of the government's role in health care.

Troubling news about Gov. Sebelius continues to pour in. Her close alliance with Kansas's abortion industry has been known, but the extent of her ties, as now revealed, suggest that she may owe her entire political career to the huge sums this industry spent on and gave to her campaigns for public office. In particular, the notorious George Tiller, who has established his Wichita, Kansas facility as a national hub for second- and third-trimester abortions, helped launch Gov. Sebelius by:

Donation $200,000 in abortion proceeds to his own political action committee in Kansas in 2002, making it the largest PAC in the state and a primary supporter of Sebelius's.

Raising $70,000 from other Kansas abortionists for this fund to support Sebelius.

Donating more than $23,000 directly to Sebelius's own campaign committee, after which, as governor, she vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed minimum health standards to protect women in the state's abortion mills.

This record underscores how beholden Sebelius is to the ugliest business in America. It renders her unfit for any office, but particularly to lead the agency charged with protecting our families' health.

Please click here to watch the video I've made about the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and to sign our petition to Senate leaders. We have no time to lose to prevent one of the worst Cabinet choices in U.S. history.

Thank you and God bless you.

Watch the video on the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and sign our petition urging Senate leaders to reject the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius.

Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council
801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 888/372-2284
W: frc.org

Give Steele Some Time

I had mixed feelings during the last RNC chair election. I liked Michael Steele based on his appearances on Sean Hannity and other shows. I thought he'd make a good spokesperson and I liked the fact that he was known and popular. I wasn't 100% sure about his core beliefs, but I knew him to be a strong conservative.

However, I really liked some of the other candidates, too. I wasn't familiar with all, but Saul Anuzis and Katon Dawson were two strong conservative candidates. Either one would have done an outstanding job.

I stayed fairly neutral during the selection process although I watched it closely. When it was all said and done and Steele won, I was pleased with his strong finish and thought the change would bode well for the Republican Party.

Steele has had a few ups and downs since taking the helm. Being the RNC Chairman means having every little thing you say parsed to the nth degree. Steele was used to being controversial. His role on talk shows was to spice things up, debate and provoke. Not so with the position he's in now. He has to talk smooth, not ruffle feathers (unless they're Democratic plumes) and pull everyone in the Party together.

Pulling all the various factions in the Republican Party together is not an easy task as anyone on "our" side knows. Herding cats is an oft-used phrase that pops into conversations dealing with pulling us all together.

Conservatives are principled and generally don't like to compromise on their principles. It's easy for us to love our brother, but not so easy to vote for him if his views on abortion are different than ours. It's easy to embrace and try to convert our agnostic sister, but impossible for some to vote for her.

There's a lot of debate going on right now in the Party. Big tent or straight and narrow? Follow the Ronald Reagan path or broaden into moderate territory? Win at any cost or take a chance on losing by sticking with conservative principles?

I'm one who falls into the stick with your true conservative principles court. What's the point of winning the battle (election) if we lose the war (our country, our principles)?

I'm still not exactly sure where Steele falls on all the various issues I raised above. He has certainly stirred the pot in some pretty negative ways. You don't go after Rush Limbaugh and expect to win many friends. Even those who don't like him know he is a powerhouse and he speaks straight.

Steele's recent comments on abortion have another faction up in arms. Can't say I blame them. I am pro-life. Strongly. However, I don't think it should be the ONLY issue we use as a yardstick for measuring the worth of our candidates. It's a tough one though. If someone ran and said they were pro-murder, there is no way anyone, left or right of the great divide, would vote for them.

There's isn't much in the way of middle ground on the abortion issue, which is why it's like storming through a well-seeded field of land mines. No way you're not going to step on one.

I have a friend who loves Ronald Reagan. She has a room devoted to him and a huge bust of him that you see as you walk in her front door. She is pro-choice. She is as conservative as you can get except in that one area. She bleeds red, white and blue. She keeps her mouth shut when the issue comes up and knows she'll never be able to run for office as long as she holds her current view on abortion. Should we kick her out of the Party? I don't think so.

Despite the early controversy I'm still pulling for Steele. I think he has a lot to learn and he has to reshape his way of thinking when it comes to speaking. I am still very open minded and optimistic. He needs to get his act together fairly quickly though if we're going to be successful in the next round of elections.

Despite Steele's rough start, many in GOP optimistic
The new party chair has been mired in internal feuds, but expectations for next elections are building.
http://www.elabs5.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=o1l,4lge,er,331d,4l66,mbr4,k497

Obama to Rescind Bush Abortion Rule

President Barack Obama is moving to tilt the balance of power back to patients in the struggle over whether health care providers must provide controversial services, regardless of whether they violate religious or moral principles.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WomensHealth/story?id=6977348&page=1

I just thought the porkulus was the worst I'd hear about today

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
United Nations' threat: No more parental rights
Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"It's definitely on our doorstep," he said. "The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election."

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that "the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

- Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

- A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

- Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

- The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

-A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

- According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

- Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

- Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

- Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

- Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

"Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government," Farris said. "The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children."

Michael Farris

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

"If you think your child shouldn't go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that's what's best for your child," he said. "If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child."

He continued, "If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance."

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because "the political world has changed."

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

"I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime," he said. "There's not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it."

The politics of inclusion and compromise

The following comment was left on one of my earlier blogs. The anonymous contributor wrote this regarding an ad I posted that a group ran on Inauguration day (I'd have to go back and look to see which group and what was in it as I've posted a lot of info on my blogs this past week!).

Wow! In content and tone this ad is SO reminiscent of the negative campaign ads that ran for months before Obama was elected. (Do you think that there's a correlation between the two?) Come on! Inclusion is the name of the game. United we stand. And united we'd better stand...because believe it our not, there is a world of challenges inside and issues outside of the US and Alaska.... (The economy is a global one, remember?) At least give him credit for picking people who will not continue to torture our enemies as the last administration did. That's returning to the Constitution.

I found the comment funny. Not ha ha funny, but scratch your head funny.

For the past eight years (at least) conservatives have been bombarded with attacks, slurs, and slander from the left. We've endured the media twisting of information, misinformation in the media, and the list goes on. If George W. Bush said it, then the press and liberals attacked. Viciously.

Pleas to Democrats to unite, to work together, went unheeded. Attempts to compromise were scoffed at by those on the other side of the aisle. A war was waged in the media and on the Internet against conservative values and conservatives in general. It's still being waged.

Now that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and friends are in power and working to cram their agendas down the throats of the country, all of a sudden Republicans are supposed to roll over, toss our principles into the trash can and swallow our values? Maybe we should just act like the liberals have been acting for oh so many years.

Uniting would mean welcoming abortion.
Uniting would mean believing a pork package is going to save our economy.
Uniting would mean sending our tax dollars to fund abortions around the world.
Uniting would mean trying to smother those who have sworn to destroy us with peace, love and hugs.
Uniting would mean the un-"Fairness Doctrine" which is the beginning of the end of free speech.
Uniting would mean trashing our work ethics and voting rights to satisfy Union bosses.

Somehow I don't see conservatives giving up on the Constitution, giving up on free speech, the right to life, voting rights, protecting our country and self responsibility.

Where's the middle ground? Only kill some babies in the womb? Only give up some of our voting rights? Stop a few from exercising their right to free speech? Just hug the terrorists who's name begins with an H?

Why should conservatives handle things any differently than the liberals, progressives, Democrats or whatever label is pc at the moment? I don't expect to see conservatives stooping to the tactics used by many liberals. However, we will fight for our country and we won't compromise our principles.

I don't know how to solve the problems of this country or the world. I don't see a middle ground in many of the issues. It does seem to be a battle that will continue for many years to come. It's possible that having lost this past election that we will find we've lost the country. I hope not. I'm not giving up and I intend to cling to my guns and Bible (although I don't actually own a gun ;-) as long as I possibly can.

Oh, one more short comment to the anonymous comment poster --- give it up on the torture stuff. I won't even bore my intelligent readers with delving into that talking point.

Ah, and I can't resist another little shot --- if the economy is such an important issue (and I believe it is), how come Mr. Obama just decided to send millions of dollars out of the country to fund abortion clinics? Take a look at the "stimulus" package he's pushing. It's not a stimulus package, it's a pork package with a lot of money stuck in there for social engineering and other things that will have zippo affect on the economy.

And, finally, to end my long post... I'm not about to start a comment war or blogging war with progressives, liberals, Democrats, etc. so don't expect me to do this again! I'd been thinking about writing on the topic and that post comment just fell into my lap at the right time so I decided to use it.

FOCA, Abortion, State's Rights, Egobama

Egobama's stance on abortion was much discussed during the election. The fact that he stood before Planned Parenthood and promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as one of his first actions as President was shared with millions via YouTube.

Now he is to be the President and he will sign FOCA. I urge you to go read up on this act. According to what I've read the act will legalize partial birth abortions, will take away the parents right of notification for their minor children's abortions, and do away with a state's right to enact legislation in regards to abortion.

In other words, abortion is going to be crammed down the throat of everyone.

If you are one who is not against abortion, there is something in FOCA that should set off alarms: the erosion of state's rights.

Please go out and do some research.

For those who are against abortion, there is MUCH to be concerned about in this bill. Roe vs. Wade is nothing in comparison to what FOCA will do to legitimize using abortion as birth control.

Here are two sites with some information:

Susan B. Anthony List Sign the petition now: www.sba-list.org/foca
Catholic Vote www.catholicvote.com

I know there are other great sites with lots of info, you'll find them on the search engines. We only have a short window of opportunity to try and change Egobama's mind on this issue, if it is changeable.

I'm hoping he's going to find the reality of being President won't allow him to enact some of his campaign promises. However, he's going to have to throw his supporters some bones. This may be one that he tosses out to satisfy his followers despite an uproar from many of us. If we yell loud enough, maybe it won't be the one he chooses. Let's yell.

Sign the Fight FOCA Petition

www.fightfoca.com

Barack Obama made a promise.
Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists:

The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

SEE THE VIDEO IN THE RIGHT SIDEBAR (scroll down) —->

With a single stroke of the pen, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide.

Twenty Senators (including Sen. Barack Obama) and 109 U.S. Representatives have co-sponsored this "Freedom of Choice Act." The stated aim of this legislation is to "end the abortion wars."

To these legislators, "ending the abortion wars" means allowing abortion for any reason, at any time, without any restriction or any regulation. This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support.

FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.

Americans United for Life (AUL), a pro-life law and policy organization, has prepared an analysis of the "Freedom of Choice Act." Please click here to read AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke’s analysis of this horrendous legislation.

Please add your name to the Fight FOCA petition and let your friends know about Barack Obama’s promise to expand abortion throughout the country.

www.fightfoca.com

What a strange day in the world of politics...

First I hear that Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate, has asked Ron Paul to be his Vice President and his current VP pick is willing to step aside if Paul will say yes. Bob Barr does this publicly but hasn't yet talked to Ron Paul??? Is the man losing it? Yes, he's from Georgia I'm sorry to say. Until he went off on this wild ego kick he seems to be on at the moment a lot of us had some degree of respect for him, whether we agreed 100% or not. But this verges on weirdness (or maybe it does more than verge).

At the same time Bob Barr is on Fox talking about this, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are on CNN giving an interview. I didn't see it, my husband was watching it while I watched the other. Yes, we are a multi-tv family unfortunately (I strongly dislike television).

So what's with that? That would be a hoot to see Paul and Nader on the same ticket. Not that I want it to happen, there's already enough wackiness in this race with Georgia producing two of the wacky candidates (Cynthia McKinney is also running on the Green ticket... she's originally from Georgia but has moved to California thank goodness...).

While all that is going on some dingbat woman in South Carolina's Democrat Party Chairman Carol Fowler is saying Sarah Palin's only qualification is that she didn't have an abortion??? What kind of people are running the Democratic Party?

First you have the lipstick smear, then this woman shows her true colors?

Are there any nice people left in the Democratic Party?

I went out again on the Internet just wandering around for a minute or two looking to see what was out there on Sarah Palin (research for the blog) and it is not a kind world out there. It is showing the rest of the United States just how crazy the Left is becoming though.

Even the comments we Barracuda Babes are getting on this blog are nasty when they come from the Left.

What a strange day in election land. I have a feeling it's just going to get weirder and weirder.