Project White Rose

Hat Tip: ARRA News Service

Smokey the Bear is a Fascist

It seems any government agency can and will be used to deprive you of your rights. The National Forestry Service violated Bobby Unser's rights. That's far more serious than trespassing into a 'national forest'. The Forestry Service ought to be subject to punative fines and the individuals responsible ought to be in prison.



Hat Tip: The Heritage Foundation

All For One and One For All!

Brilliant Response Against Exceptions for Rape/Incest

The trouble with unprincipled incrementalism and allowing for exceptions
Rebecca Kiessling

This is my response to Scott Klusendorf’s blog on the subject:

Hello Scott, thank you for bringing up these very important issues. Many in the pro-life movement will insist that we remain silent on things that matter to us in order to have “unity.” But the reality is that there is not unity within the pro-life movement on every issue and on strategy. We may say we want unity, but really, we’d like everyone else to either agree with us, or keep it to themselves. I think it’s beneficial for all to have logical discussions on issues involving strategy, and hopefully through these discussions we’ll at least gain more understanding.

I’m very thankful to have this opportunity to address the efficacy and import of what you refer to as “the incremental approach” to legislating abortion. I’ve written a piece which is the #1 ranked philosophical abortion essay on Google, and I’m well-able to articulate logical arguments on the subject, but for me, this is far more than merely a philosophical exercise. You see, I was conceived in rape and nearly aborted at two back-alley abortionists. But the dangerous conditions and the fact that it was illegal caused my birthmother to back out. She did not choose life for me. She chose abortion. Pro-life advocates and pro-life legislators chose life for me by making sure abortion was illegal in Michigan back then, even in cases of rape – 100% pro-life, no exceptions, no compromise, no incrementalism. They are my heroes and I owe my life to them! This is why I, in turn, do the same for others. I wasn’t lucky – I was protected. And so, it is with this sense of gratitude, purpose and urgency that I address these issues here.

I often hear the “burning building” and “sinking ship” analogies when speaking of allowing for exceptions – that you should try to save as many as you can. I believe that these analogies fail for several reasons. First of all, with the sinking ship, you are making a judgment call as to whom you should save – who is worthy of being saved first. This judgment call speaks volumes as to what values a society or organization holds dear. The saying, “women and children first” became a protocol used in marine disasters after it was established with the sinking of HMS Birkenhead in 1845, later employed in the sinking of the Titanic when 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men. By contrast, when the French ship SS La Bourgogne sank in 1898 killing 546 people, of the 165 survivors, 104 were crew members, 61 passengers, and only one woman. This was a product of the French Revolution and considered to be shameful to the entire French merchant marine. When we choose who we will save, it speaks volumes about what we really believe and who we are. Allowing for the rape exception says that children conceived in rape are disposable. It’s like putting us out there as infantry soldiers on the front lines, and then taking a huge step back, because you think that this current battle needs to be won and you perceive it’s the only way to achieve victory. But we are not column fodder!

Secondly, with the “burning building” analogy, the assumption would be that you would make efforts to go back and save the rest, right? In your blog, you state: “We are choosing to save as many as we can while we work to save all.” Well Scott, I would love to see the statistics as to how many times anyone has gone back to save the 1% after the 99% were already safe. How much are these incrementalists truly “working to save all?” I just don’t see this happening. Instead, all I’ve witnessed is that once the 99% are “safe”, the firehoses are being shut off, the fire engines are sent home, and unprincipled incrementalists are allowing the building to be burnt to the ground because, after all, those stuck inside are “only 1%.” Why bother wasting all of that water, manpower and other resources for only 1%?

The Hyde Amendment is a glaring example of this. A generation ago, the Hyde Amendment allowed for taxpayer funding of abortions in cases of rape. And instead of the pro-life calvary returning to save the 1% who’d been left behind, we had the celebration of the proposed Stupak Amendment a generation later as being a pro-life victory. In fact, NRLC originally sent out a press release saying that the Stupak Amendment wouldn’t provide for the funding of any abortions, which of course was not true because the rape exception was in there. When this fact was exposed, then NRLC and others dismissed it by saying that it “merely” incorporates the terms of the Hyde Amendment, and again, “it’s only 1%.” And so, mediocrity begets mediocrity. For me, this is so much worse than pro-choicers who would say to me “I think your mother should have been able to abort you / if I have my way, you’d be dead right now.” No, it’s much worse because it’s saying, “And our tax dollars should have paid for it!” Ouch! And that’s pro-life??? When you’re the 1%, you feel it, you get it, and it’s not a strategic game plan – it’s the lives and deaths of those similarly-situated. They are not a nameless-faceless irrelevant 1%.

Next, these analogies fail because the assumption is that 99% of the others’ lives have been saved by this unprincipled incremental approach, when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. What I’ve observed is a mediocre attempt to save the lives of the 99%, but in reality, very few have been saved by these measures, and they have not brought us any closer to ending legalized abortion – especially now with chemical abortions so readily available. Instead, many pro-lifers have become satiated with these so-called victories. When you’re satisfied with baby steps, why bother exhausting yourself with a giant leap? But after 40 years, you haven’t even made it across the room!

Fourth, these analogies and unprincipled incrementalism are based on the faulty assumption that you can’t save them all, and that simply isn’t the case. Scott, on your blog, you mentioned “abortion-control legislation aimed at limiting evil insofar as possible given current legal restraints” and “given current political realities.” Oh really? And what are those current political realities? Is it some supernatural phenomenon which is truly out of our sphere of influence or control? Of course not! The current political realities are lawmakers who have been re-elected because they’ve repeatedly received the exclusive endorsement of major pro-life organizations’ PACs in recurring election cycles, despite the fact that those lawmakers have not voted 100% pro-life. These lawmakers do not make the rape exception in a political vacuum. They make the rape exception because they are able to make the rape exception and get away with it. Too many pro-life organizations are not holding them accountable because they are allowing for it as well. Accepting rape exceptions = allowing for rape exceptions = supporting rape exceptions = making rape exceptions. The outcome is all the same, and what you support and applaud as a victory speaks volumes as to what your true values are. We will always have lawmakers who will insist on the rape exception as long as we have major pro-life organizations which tolerate, and thus, condone it. Instead of trying to push legislation through as quickly as possible, those who are 100% pro-life should hold out, as the Democrats did when they got what they wanted with the national health care legislation. They kept working their fellow lawmakers until they had them convinced and had the votes to win.

I just recently testified before a state house committee on a pro-life piece of legislation which had no exceptions. The sponsor of the bill was hoping for a 12 – 8 vote before the hearing began, but in the end, it passed with a 15 – 5 vote. Many legislators who make the exception have never really been challenged on this issue and have never put a face to it. I find that it’s rather easy to change the minds of those who make the rape exception – challenge them, hold them accountable, and put a face, a voice, a story to the issue. Even if it’s anecdotal, it’s still okay Scott. My observation is that many people like to keep this discussion in the philosophical realm so that the can play “let’s make pretend we’re not talking about real people,” so that you don’t have the opportunity to penetrate the stone wall they’ve built around their hearts with a personal story. But I’ve found that there’s nothing which pierces the heart like a personal story.

As a strategic means of ending abortion, unprincipled incrementalism has been a complete failure and got us the ruling in Roe v Wade. The majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, Sec. IX, states, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” However, the Court noted the following in footnote 54: “When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

“There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?”

And then the Court concluded, “In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

You see, the hard lesson from Roe v Wade is that when ALL aren’t protected, NONE are protected. But it’s a lesson of which some are either ignorant, have forgotten, neglected, or have yet to learn. We will never have an end to legalized abortion in the U.S. as long as unprincipled incrementalists have their way.Many of the incremental laws which merely regulate abortion are heralded as necessary protections for women. So then why the rape exceptions? Don’t rape victims deserve the same protection? Again, it just makes no sense to throw it in there. If you can’t stand up for the 1% in some of these small measures, how are you going to do it when it comes to actually ending legalized abortion? You’ve already established that we’re expendable.

For those who would like to put names, faces and stories to this issue, please visit these pages on my site, which include written stories and videos:

www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

and

www.rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html

And there are a multitude of others for whom we speak. Never forget that 1% of 54,000,000 = 540,000 people!

Scott, I would have to be suicidal to acquiesce to a rape exception. I love life! I love the opportunity to live which was afforded to me by others who recognized the value and dignity of children conceived in rape, and that we were worth fighting for. My birthmother is thankful too. In fact, she and her husband legally adopted me 4 months ago – 22 years from the day we met. When you can say that you are committed to holding out for 100% pro-life legislation, it’s like saying, “I get it. You all matter. Yours were lives worth defending.” Now I hope you’ll all proceed from here and do the same for others!

Rebecca Kiessling, Esq., Pro-Life Speaker/Activist

Leftist Climate of Hate

Union members call their governor "Hitler" only because he's trying to break up their monopolistic, budget-busting, sweetheart deals that were arranged by corrupt politicians. And they attempt to bully and terrorize those who report the facts.

Learning to Hate My Life

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. ~Luke 14:26

As I consider my life since coming to faith in Christ, I see that as I have grown older, I have gradually, ever so slowly, learned more and more about following Jesus and about being guided by the Holy Spirit. But I also see that as I have aged, I have become more desperate for the materialistic things I have always wanted. For example, a sexy wife, and a high-paying job. While these are merely temptations to indulge in selfishness, still I struggle against growing desperation as I see the years rolling on ever faster.

Jesus says we must hate our respective lives in order to be his disciples. This desperation makes that easier. That is, it seems to. However, I suspect it isn't my life that I'm inclined to hate, but rather my circumstances. But resigning to hating my life because it isn't what I'd like it to be simply feels like giving in to discouragement. This kind of despair is not what Jesus is talking about. It seems instead to be hating the absence of particular idols from my life rather than hating my life.

The goal in having the proper perspective Jesus prescribes is not in being bitter over what my life is like, but rather in having no inordinate love for all the good of which my life consists. I must thank God for all his many blessings, yet never love them. I must keep them distant from my heart because this life, as good as it may be, is never the point.

The enjoyment of God's blessings is a natural consequence of having received them and appropriately results in gratitude and admiration for God. Yet my pleasure in life must never crowd out my love for God. Not in any way. Not in the slightest.

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. ~John 12:24-26

Straight Shooter

Most politicians are either correct but lack the conviction to defend their own positions on the one hand or incorrect and have to dodge questions and give long-winded round about responses that don't tell you anything on the other hand. Chris Christie does neither. He is correct and he's courageous enough to tell it like it is.

Democrats' Anti-American Foreign Policy

Democrats: Emboldening America's Enemies and Terrifying Her Allies Since 1976

[T]he moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, "We hear your voices."

He can hear their voices? He couldn't hear the voices of the tea partiers, and they were protesting on the streets of Washington, D.C.

But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo, why doesn't he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we're on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)
[...]
For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests.

I Can See Clearly Now..."

2020!

Allen West for President 2020

Now that our nation is so thoroughly burdened with debt, we are very tempted to look for a president who is adept at managing money and financial matters. But a president must be primarily shrewd with regard to international affairs and national security. Congressman Allen West has only just begun his first term as a representative from Florida. He has already demonstrated familiarity with international issues and the character required to overcome the suicidal leftists in congress. Some day, perhaps in 2016 or 2020, he will make an excellent president of the United States.

NPR & CBS Report Lies and Approve Slavery & Pedophilia

Planned Parenthood (formerly The Birth Control League) staff in several different infanticide facilities are caught on video attempting to help a pimp obtain abortions for pregnant children who have been enslaved for the sex trade. This makes them accessories to child sex trafficking. NPR, CBS, and others aired blatant lies in order to defend Planned Parenthood. It is crystal clear, while NPR and CBS are ostensibly news organizations, they have a deep, abiding, desperate love for abortion.

Planned Parenthood, Child-Trafficking, and the Poor Choices of NPR and Company

The first dishonest spin I could find came from Media Matters. They asserted that the video was a “hoax” and that Planned Parenthood had immediately contacted the FBI to report a potential human-trafficking ring. This assertion was patently false. The truth is that these videos had been made in numerous locations. In each setting, a senior Planned Parenthood staff member did everything they could to help the supposed perpetrator continue to profit from the raping of children. They even went as far as instructing the supposed perpetrator on the importance of making sure the little girls “kept their mouths shut,” lest a concerned employee would get nosy and report them.
[...]
To my astonishment, NPR had taken the same spin and framing as Media Matters.
[...]
At that point, I wasn’t at all surprised to see CBS adopting the Media Matters/NPR framing and doing the same cover-up for the ignorance and lack of humanity displayed by numerous senior staff members from Planned Parenthood. It seemed so simple to me. Come out, thank Lila Rose for identifying the issue and bringing it to light, announce a new effort to better train staff, and most import of all, use the entire matter finally give help to the advocates of human-trafficking victims who have fought for years to educate the public on what atrocities are occurring right beneath our privileged little noses. But no, the Left Media’s little darling could do no wrong.
[...]
what about us as a nation? Do our past “choices” keep us from being able to honestly look at what has just occurred? Are we allowing our various political orientations to blind our ability to recognize such a clear case of wrong?
[...]
The videos of Planned Parenthood managers and staff doing these horrible deeds are accurate, truthful, and should be seen by all. The Mainstream Media Establishment’s portrayal of the videos has entered the realm of utter deception and has participated in perpetuating a system where adults and children are victimized by the human-sex-trafficking industry.

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

What about communists? Should they be welcomed into the conservative fold as well? GOProud claims to be a conservative group while promoting the cultural acceptance and normalization of gender confusion and homosexual acts.

CPAC’s Culture Club

“The issue is not that GOProud works on only four of the five traditional items on the conservative agenda — rather, it omits — because it actively opposes — one part of the core,” according to the official boycott letter that was sent to CPAC chairman David Keene in late November, signed by Cannon, Gary Bauer (president of American Values), Brian Brown (president of the National Organization of Marriage), and Mathew Staver (president of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s law school). “It is no more acceptable as a participant at CPAC than a group that said it embraced the ‘traditional conservative agenda’ but actively worked for higher taxes and greater governmental control of the economy,” the letter continues.
[...]
Last fall, Barron all but “wrote Jim DeMint out of the conservative movement,” as Cannon tells it. In the heat of the midterm campaigns, GOProud joined liberals in attacking DeMint over comments he made about religious freedom and education — comments that bore no connection to any kind of legislative initiative. Barron has also said (on MSNBC, again) that DeMint — who’s now considered a Tea Party kingmaker — “has given up the ability to lead on any issues conservatives care about.”
[...]
This point was at the core of the November boycott letter: “We believe that, in general, the conservative movement is strengthened by the presence within it of organizations that give priority to particular, even single, issues. It is not necessary for each group within a political movement to embrace the fullness of a detailed and defined philosophy. But it is necessary for each group within any coherent movement not to stand in diametrical opposition to one or more of its core principles. It is our conviction that the institution of marriage and the family qualify — historically, philosophically and empirically — as such core principles. An organization committed to the ultimate abandonment of the legal and social meaning of marriage by definition disqualifies itself from recognition as a partner in the conservative cause.”
[...]
In the final analysis, GOProud may be doing conservatism a real service. The organization is helping a movement and party discern how to deal in a principled and prudent way with fundamental, personal issues in the political realm — in the contentious public square of a fallen world.

I have to respond to one point that is not central to the article, but is critical to GOProud's agenda:

GOProud presents itself as a victim. “The reason the boycotters applied a litmus test to us is because we were born gay,” its executive director, Jimmy LaSalvia, told the New York Times, where the controversy was featured this weekend.

Human beings are not gay. Human beings are, by definition, heterosexual. It's an obvious biological fact. That reality doesn't prevent us humans from participating in homosexual acts. But our identity as human beings is permanent and irrefutably heterosexual.

Bipartisan Revolt Against Obama's Statism

Equality in education is a civil rights issue...therefore, the Democrats are reliably against it.

Boehner Set to Revive Successful DC Voucher Program that Democrats Eliminated

[T]he Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools. The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.
GOP House Speaker Boehner and Senator Lieberman put out this video statement:


[...]
this is going to be a tricky issue for Obama and the Democrats–one that will further define the Democrats as bought-off, public-sector union hacks and self-serving politicians who continually oppress and exploit others for their own political gain. Some of you may think, yeah, those Republicans, but I will remind you–it was the Republicans who originally started the DC scholarship program and the Democrats (and a few of the usual RINOs) who filibustered it. Kinda like the 1964 Civil Rights Act–Democrats filibustered that one, too. Look it up.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Obama's Neverland

Obama Marks Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

On the 38th anniversary of the infamous and unconstitutional Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, in reference to the illegal practice of murdering babies, Barack Hussein Obama said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right.” I wonder what fantasy land he is living in. There is no such constitutional right. On the contrary, human beings have an inalienable right to life which is supposed to be protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Obama said the 1973 Supreme Court ruling “affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

As in, the way Obamacare intrudes into private family matters. Does he not realize people can hear what he says? Of course, he expects the Legacy Media to run interference for him, and it has shown tremendous aptitude for damage control. But, reality is ultimately inescapable.

Pence Has My Vote!

Mike Pence has announced that he will not run for president in 2012, but is still considering a gubernatorial bid in Indiana.

Mike Pence Blasts Abortion Truce in March for Life Remarks

In a written statement containing Pence’s March for Life comments that his office emailed LifeNews.com, Pence said:

We gather to mark the 38th anniversary of the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. And we gather today in the shadow of a new pro-life majority on Capitol Hill. And we will keep gathering until Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history where it belongs.

These are trying times in the life of this nation. Our economy is struggling and our national government is awash in a sea of debt. Amidst these struggles, some would have us focus our energies on jobs and spending.

We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a house divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.

A nation that will not stand for life will not stand for long. You know there can be no lasting prosperity without a moral foundation in law.

And as to focusing on spending, I agree. Let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America.

Thank you for braving the cold one more time and saying to the heart of our national government, ‘We will fight on for life. We will fight on for the unborn and the brokenhearted.’

And we will fight on because we know, as Jefferson said, ‘God who gave us life gave us liberty…and God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever.’

And we know this: We will win this fight because the deepest desire of every mother and father is to protect their child, at any cost, even with the own lives and that truth cannot be erased.

The American people will make this right. We will restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law. Because every American knows in their heart, this is the greatest nation on earth because we acknowledge the God-given right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the unalienable right to life.

Pence also hit on the truce during his speech before the Values Voters Summit in Washington. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/24/state-5484/

“Now I know some say that Republicans should stay away from such issues this year…that the American people are focused on jobs and spending and our movement would do well to stand aside, bank the win and return to fight after this fiscal and economic crisis has passed,” he said during the Values Voter Summit.

“But we do not live in a world where an American leader can just focus on our financial ledger. A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life,” he continued.

Pence continued, “To those who say we should focus on cutting spending, I say ‘Ok, let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad! Stop funding research that destroys human embryos in the name of science, and let’s deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America.’”

“We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life … have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a House divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles,” he said. “Men and women, we must demand, here and now, that the leaders of the Republican Party stand for life” and to do so “without apology.”

Abortion Is Not Legal

For me, it is a tremendous encouragement to read the Truth articulated eloquently with reason and with love. Please read the entire article.

It's Not Legal

Abortion is not legal. It can never be. No matter what the Supreme Court has said, the fact is that the right to life is inalienable.
[...]
At just nine weeks, you can already see his extremities and hear the heart beating at an incredible rate.

With that evidence, even the Roe Court could not disguise its unlawful ruling. As it wrote then: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.” (Emphasis added).
[...]
Abortion is as incompatible with our American ideals as slavery. Roe did not make abortion legal. It only delayed punishment for the perpetrators.

God stands above all; may He have mercy on us!

If the Fed Won't Do It...

...then the Several Sovereign States will!

10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

Arizona

The proposal is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House. It says:

Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate's citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

[...]
The Arizona bill also requires attachments, "which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury," including "an original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance."

It also requires testimony that the candidate "has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America."

Indiana

"After [Sen. John] McCain was nominated at the Republican National Convention, Republican officials filed with the elections division a certificate of nomination that attested both he and his vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, met the eligibility requirements set out in the U.S. Constitution. The certificate of nomination filed by Democratic Party officials for Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, contained no similar attestation.

Montana

Under Montana's plan by Rep. Bob Wagner, candidates would have to document their eligibility and also provide for protection for state taxpayers to prevent them from being billed for "unnecessary expense and litigation" involving the failure of 'federal election officials' to do their duty.

"There should be no question after the fact as to the qualifications [of a president]," Wagner told WND. "The state of Montana needs to have [legal] grounds to sue for damages for the cost of litigation."

Wagner's legislation cites the Constitution's requirement that the president hold "natural born citizenship" and the fact that the "military sons and daughters of the people of Montana and all civil servants to the people of Montana are required by oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and Montana against enemies foreign and domestic."

Texas

Berman's legislation, House Bill 295, is brief and simple:

It would add to the state election code the provision: "The secretary of state may not certify the name of a candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has presented the candidate's original birth certificate indicating that the person is a natural-born United States citizen."

It includes an effective date of Sept. 1, 2011, in time for 2012 presidential campaigning.

Berman told WND he's seen neither evidence nor indication that Obama qualifies under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

"If the federal government is not going to vet these people, like they vetted John McCain, we'll do it in our state," he said.

He noted the Senate's investigation into McCain because of the Republican senator's birth in Panama to military parents.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts agree, a "natural born citizen" was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions have called for a "natural born citizen" to be born of citizen parents inside the nation.

Other states considering whether to enforce the eligibility requirements of the Federal Constitution:

Connecticut
Georgia
Maine
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania

Didn't You Know?, Part 3

Didn't you know that government officials promote and protect the bloody, grotesque, inhuman atrocity of infanticide? Didn't you know that so-called women's groups have no real interest in protecting women? The subject is so important and the article below so thorough and well written, I've left nothing out.

The Philadelphia Horror: How Mass Murder Gets a Pass

Let's give the "climate of hate" rhetoric a rest for a moment. It's time to talk about the climate of death, in which the abortion industry thrives unchecked. Dehumanizing rhetoric, rationalizing language and a callous disregard for life have numbed America to its monstrous consequences. Consider the Philadelphia Horror.

In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistleblowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way -- until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women's "choice." Prosecutors charged Gosnell and his death squad with multiple counts of murder, infanticide, conspiracy, abuse of corpse, theft and other offenses.

The 281-page grand jury report released Wednesday provides a bone-chilling account of how Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society" systematically preyed on poor, minority pregnant women and their live, viable babies. The report's introduction lays out the criminal enterprise that claimed the lives of untold numbers of babies -- and mothers:

"This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels -- and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it."

Echoing the same kind of dark euphemisms plied by Planned Parenthood propagandists who refer to unborn life as "fetal and uterine material," Gosnell referred to his deadly trade as "ensuring fetal demise." Reminiscent of the word wizards who refer to the skull-crushing partial-birth abortion procedure as "intact dilation and evacuation" and "intrauterine cranial decompression," Gosnell described his destruction of babies' spinal cords as "snipping." He rationalized his macabre habit of cutting off dead babies' feet and saving them in rows and rows of specimen jars as "research." His guilt-ridden employees then took photos of some of the victims before dumping them in shoeboxes, paper bags, one-gallon spring-water bottles and glass jars.

They weren't the only ones who adopted a see-no-evil stance:

-- The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew of clinic violations dating back decades, but did nothing.

-- The Pennsylvania Department of State was "repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell" -- including the clinic's unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street -- "and repeatedly chose to do nothing."

-- Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials who regularly visited Gosnell's human waste-clogged offices did nothing.

-- Nearby hospital officials who treated some of the pregnant mothers who suffered grave complications from Gosnell's butchery did nothing.

-- An unnamed evaluator with the National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell's chamber of horrors was "the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected" -- but did nothing.

Meanwhile, the death racketeers have launched a legislative and regulatory assault across the country on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers from New York City to Baltimore, Austin and Seattle that offer abortion alternatives, counseling and family services to mostly poor, vulnerable minority women.

Already, left-wing journalists and activists have rushed to explain that these abortion atrocities ignored for four decades by abortion radicals and rationalizers are not really about abortion. A Time magazine writer argued that the Philadelphia Horror was "about poverty, not Roe v. Wade." A University of Minnesota professor declared: "This is not about abortion."

But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP Gov. Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell's criminal enterprise -- and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding "access" and appeasing abortion lobbyists.

As the report made clear: "With the change of administration from (pro-life Democratic) Gov. Casey to Gov. Ridge," government health officials "concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

Deadly indifference to protecting life isn't tangential to the abortion industry's existence -- it's at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It's the logical, bloodcurdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Hateful, Part 5

The Statist, Anti-American media defends violent rhetoric from their allies on the left and ignores death threats targeting patriots.

Suddenly Radical Frances Fox Piven Is Old “Widowed College Professor”

Now that Piven’s calls for violent revolution have landed her in the … spotlight (you thought I was going to say crosshairs, didn’t you! You vitriolic person!) and the media is circling the wagons.
[...]
Progressives who speak of Piven’s threats remain silent on the threats (worse ones) directed at Sarah Palin, whom progressives targeted online in death threats on Twitter and pages devoted to her death on Facebook.
[...]
Here is Piven advocating for violence as acceptable dissent in 2004:

“I have considerable respect for nonviolence but I don’t treat it as inevitably a necessary rule …
“It’s partly a problem almost strategy and propaganda, it’s a violent country, it’s a violent government, it’s killing people, and they’re going to call us violent if we break a window, but they will do that. Unless you have good reason for breaking the window, probably you shouldn’t do that, unless it’s,m you know, a big part of your strategy.”

Piven calls for violent revolution again in the most recent issue of The Nation:

So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?
[...]
Second, before people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant.
[...]
Third, protesters need targets, preferably local and accessible ones capable of making some kind of response to angry demands.

Did Piven just say “targets?” Wait – shouldn’t the left be condemning this instead of defending it? How are we to take their calls for censorship civility seriously?

An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

[...]as we saw after Arizona: when there was more evidence to tie Jared Loughner to the progressive-Communist movement, progressives double-downed on blaming the tea party.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Hateful, Part 4

Those pesky citizens with all their liberties and whatnot!

Sheriff Dupnik Faces Voter Recall

Not much more than an hour after nutter Jared Loughner shot a Congresswoman in the head and killed several others, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik starting blaming the Tea Party and the right-wing for the killing.
[...]
We expect such gutter-dwelling rhetoric from sites like the DemocraticUnderground or the DailyKos. When a law enforcement official does it moments after one of the worst attacks against a federal official in years, it speaks to the character (or lack thereof) of the person in question.

In the days following, Dupnik doubled-down on his rhetoric, naming Rush Limbaugh by name. The mainstream media piled on laying clear blame on the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and the Republican Party in general. It must be news to me, but I didn’t realize saying “cut taxes” meant “go shoot someone in the face.”
Sheriff Dupnik played a critical role in bringing an all-time low to American politics and drove a wedge deep between right and left. At a moment when we all should have come together as a country to denounce the attacks of a mentally ill individual (one whom, I might add, was known to be mentally ill by Sheriff Dupnik’s office and who was previously investigated for making threats on others by Sheriff Dupnik’s office), Dupnik stood center stage and began the national blamestorming discussion.
[...]
Calls for his resignation are completely appropriate, however, the citizens in Pima County have something else in mind: they have begun the process to recall the Sheriff.

Recall is the ability of voters to fire a public official when they cease to serve the public. Sheriff Dupnik’s behavior is an extreme example of why such a remedy is necessary.

Didn't You Know?, Part 2

How is cutting a baby's spinal cord different from sucking his brains out or abandoning him to die of neglect and exposure? Abortionists kill babies. It's what they do. And our president's support for it is a matter of public record.

Why the shock, Why the outrage, Why now?

The truth is, the procedure Gosnell preferred is not new. Third term, especially "late term," abortions are performed the same way in overwhelming numbers.

Commonly referred to as "partial birth abortions" the procedure begins the same was as the "Gosnell abortion." Inducing labor and beginning the delivery of the child is where most of the children are lost in both procedures. As many as 75% of the children lose their lives in the process of early induced labor. Leaving roughly 25% of the children involved to have their lives terminated through an additional step.

In partial birth abortion, the child is delivered to within two inches of being free of the birth canal. In the "Gosnell" he delivered the child completely.

But from that point on, little difference between the procedures existed.

Scissors would be used to puncture the base of the skull and to snip the spinal cord. On some occasions then the brains would be crushed and suctioned.

In other words, while Gosnell was collecting jars of tiny feet, severed from the babies he ended the lives of, abortion practitioners from coast to coast were performing the eerily similar procedures. And 100% of them done with the backing of the National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and a long list of U.S. Senators, including then Senator Barack Obama.

It was State Senator Obama just a few years previous who had also called for votes on three occasions, in a committee that he chaired, in meetings that he had called, in which the life of a born child was in equal jeopardy to the ones Gosnell delivered.

The issue was a debate over whether or not Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois (a hospital operated by the denomination of Obama's church) could continue a practice in which a woman's labor could be induced weeks ahead of delivery. Roughly 75% of the children would die in the process, leaving roughly 25% who survived.

Instead of snipping spinal cords, the hospital would leave the children in the now infamous "soiled utility closet" to perish from exposure and neglect. Sometimes these children would expire in 45 minutes. Many times the children would struggle for life for the full 8 hours of a nurse's shift. And on multiple occasions the children would live for nearly a day.

Jill Stanek, one of the pediatric nurses who worked in the department while this practice was on going later testified before Obama's committee.

Obama's response? (According to Stanek?)

Roughly paraphrased: If a woman entered the hospital with the intent of seeking an abortion, then it was the woman's choice to allow that child to live or die. (Should it survive the induced labor.)

To be clear President Obama is the one and only ever elected federal office holder that has voted in favor of such procedures, and he did so three times, on the record.

All of which leaves me puzzled.

Why is Gosnell a monster, if so many people, including our own president believe it to be the fullest expression of "women's rights" to simply do what he was doing?