Not just born equal, but CREATED equal

Personhood Colorado, aka Colorado for Equal Rights is the brainchild of Kristi Burton, a revolutionary 19 year old woman, whose goal is to see that the Colorado state constitution is amended to include the pre-born from the moment of fertilization as having their "personhood" clearly established, so that they may enjoy equal protection under the law.

Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights is sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment in Colorado that will define when life begins. This amendment will lay the foundation to ensure that every human life—from the moment of conception—is guaranteed protection and equal rights under our laws.

Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights was founded with the goal of protecting human life. Every human being deserves equal rights under our laws, regardless of the stage of life he or she is in. Colorado for Equal Rights will stand up for the protection of every innocent human life... from the very beginning until natural death. The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.

For the first time in US history, the issue of personhood will be decided in the public forum by a constitutional amendment. Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights has been notified by the Colorado Secretary of State's Office that enough valid signatures were submitted to put the Every Human is a Person amendment on the November 2008 ballot. The Secretary of State's Office's random sampling indicated that there were 103,377 valid signatures, surpassing the 76,047 valid signatures that were required.

"The people of Colorado have spoken, the Secretary of State's Office has certified our signatures, and our equal rights amendment will be on November's ballot," stated Kristi Burton, initiative sponsor.

"All humans should be protected by love and by law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person."

Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights has demonstrated an unparalleled grassroots effort thus far, with likely more volunteer circulators than any other ballot initiative in the State's history. The grassroots initiative had over 1,300 volunteer petition circulators.

"We at Colorado for Equal Rights are incredibly thankful for our many volunteers who worked so hard for each signature we delivered to the Secretary of State's Office and the churches who stood behind us and supported us," Burton continued.

"This victory is the voice of the people and all credit goes our Creator"

Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights is a statewide grassroots organization of concerned citizens who value human life.

Personhood Colorado/Colorado for Equal Rights is sponsoring the Human Life Amendment to the Colorado constitution, stating "the term 'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization."

Check out the personhood amendment in Colorado's recent news:

World Net Daily
Town Hall
Denver Post
The Gazette

Visit Personhood Colorado

The Democrat's deceptive non-platform

How odd. The Demo-rats didn't complain about voter fraud or stolen elections at all yesterday. Did anyone else notice that? Of course you all did. See, the Demo-rats are like the palestinians in their modus operandi. When the palestinians attack Israelis with Katushya rockets and suicide bombers, Israel punches back, which causes the palestinians to complain to the UN and other NGOs. When the Demo-rats lose elections because the rest of the country is sick of their effete arrogance, their hatred of Bush and their love for the Muslim enemy, the Dems complain about rigged voting machines. Now that the Demo-rats won the majority in yesterday's election, by running as non-Republicans, there's not a peep from a one of them. But all of America lost yesterday. PowerLineBlog noticed that the Demo-rats made a deliberate decision not to take a position on the biggest issue of the day, the Iraq war, and they downplayed their intention to raise taxes and take other unpopular measures. Wait and see, folks - the Demo-rats have pulled the wool over your eyes. By not mentioning Iraq because they ran on a non-Republican platform, don't be surprised when you'll see more government promotion of abortion, gay-marriage, activist judges, more support of euthanasia, promotion of illegal immigration, higher taxes and more attacks by the Muslim enemy on our home turf. Because running on a non-Republican platform is like Arafat and other Arab leaders who say in English they want to be "partners in peace" but in Arabic say "Kill the Jews". It's thievery, pure and simple, and it's called robbing the blind which is exactly what the Demo-rats did to all of you yesterday. They blind-sided you because you fell for their deceptive platform which never mentioned how they were going to solve Social Security, Medicare, and Islamic imperialism, and you didn't ask. Just like no one asked Keith Ellison why he took money from CAIR. I have no doubt that the Demo-rats will show show their liberal side to all of you soon enough. Remember Terri Schiavo? It was the Demo-rats and Lefty activist judges who wanted to pull her feeding tube. And that's exactly what the Democrat leftist judges did. But don't blame me, I voted Republican.

Why, despite everything, Jewish-Americans keep voting for Democrats

Folks, this Election Day, November 7, 2006, vote Republican, not Democrat. Here's why, in an article from Joel Engel dated 2004:

For nearly 60 years, since the birth of Israel, American Jews have faced accusations that they care more about the well-being of their ancient homeland than of their home. Well, barring some unforeseen circumstance, the canard of dual loyalty should be retired forever on November 2, 2004. On that Tuesday, Election Day, up to 80 percent of American Jews will pull the lever for John Kerry, thereby proving that they not only do not care about Israel's well-being, but that they don't mind making common cause with people who wish them ill. Or worse.

The evidence is overwhelming that acceptable anti-Semitism has moved from right to left on the political continuum, and that its philosophical home now resides in the Democratic party, which has become less the party of liberals than of leftists. Even before Al Sharpton stood as a presidential candidate last year, Democratic politicians genuflecting for black votes--Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and Hillary Clinton, for example--often trekked up to Harlem to kiss his ring. And yet, this was a man who in previous years had either led or instigated two anti-Jewish demonstrations, one in Crown Heights and one in Harlem, which together resulted in the deaths of eight people. Does that matter to Democrats and John Kerry? Apparently not. Sharpton was rewarded with a choice slot at the Democratic National Convention, something that is impossible to imagine being given to the likes of former Republican David Duke, whose incitements have frankly born far less blood than Sharpton's.

Put aside his disgraceful role in the Tawana Brawley hoax. The fact that Democratic candidate Sharpton never had to answer questions during primary season from either the press or the other contenders about his anti-Semitic statements (to wit: "diamond merchants" whose hands bear "the blood of innocent babies") should tell Jewish Democrats something important about their party. It should tell them that anti-Semites have found safety in numbers.

Partial proof of that was on display in a VIP box at the Democratic national convention, where two other prominent guests were seated shoulder to shoulder: Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore. Considering their on-the-record statements, it's not terribly difficult to imagine them leaning close during breaks to compare notes on Jewish conspiracies and the world's locus of evil, Israel.
Carter's antipathy toward the Jewish state is well-documented, as is his affection for Arab dictators, especially Yasser Arafat. This is a man who endorsed the results of the sham 1996 "election" that transformed Arafat from self-appointed "chairman" to "president" of the Palestinian Authority, while he continues to suggest that President Bush stole Florida and therefore the 2000 election. (Remember, too, that Carter recently ratified anti-American Hugo Chavez's election in Venezuela under dubious circumstances.) Last year's Nobel Peace laureate once confided to historian/biographer Douglas Brinkley how eager he'd been to meet Arafat (another laureate!) for the first time--and why he felt such an affinity for the terrorist leader. He believes that Arafat truly wants peace and that Ariel Sharon truly does not. He considers it self-evident that the whole of the West Bank and Gaza belong to the Palestinians, a bias evinced by his insertion of "the" before the word "territories" in his written discussion of United Nations Resolution 242, though "the" had been specifically and deliberately excluded from the resolution's wording in order to demonstrate that all permanent borders are to be negotiated in good faith. No wonder his Carter Center receives substantial funding from Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, at a speech in Liverpool early this year, Moore informed his adoring audience who the world's real villains are: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." That statement sheds light on why he tried to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from being shown in Israel, and is congruent with both his speech denouncing the Israeli "occupation" at a 1990 Washington, D.C. demonstration, and his refusal that same year to attend a screening of his film Roger and Me in Jerusalem unless and until Israel met his demand to withdraw from "Arab lands." Moore has also suggested that we could solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by giving the Palestinians $4 billion worth of advanced weapons. Most egregious, though, was his dedication in the book Dude, Where's My Country? to Rachel Corrie, the pro-Palestinian activist who was killed while impeding a bulldozer sent to find and destroy tunnels used by the Palestinians for weapons smuggling. (Corrie was once photographed burning an American flag at a West Bank demonstration.)

You might think that the Democratic party, which receives 70-80 percent of the Jewish vote and a ridiculous amount of political cash, would have meted out at least verbal spanks to Moore and Carter for their anti-Israel animus. But both men, like Sharpton, remain among the adored--unlike, by contrast, the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, a liberal who was banned from the 1992 and 1996 national conventions because of his stance against abortion. Which leads inexorably to the conclusion that Moore and Carter accurately reflect their party's mainstream.

GIVEN THAT, it's no mystery how the far left has been able to hijack college campuses that used to be seedbeds of civil rights activism--much of it famously led and organized by liberal Jews. Now, under the politically correct cover of Palestinian rights, Jews find themselves lumped in with religious Christians as acceptable objects of revulsion, leaving squishy-left Steinbergs and Goldbergs to wonder what's happening as antiwar, anti-Bush demonstrations rapidly morph into anti-Israel, anti-Jew hatefests. San Francisco State, Duke, Berkeley, and Columbia (whose growing anti-Semitism in the classroom is now the subject of a short film) are only a few of the many schools where Jews have glimpsed the mob mentality of Kristallnacht.

Even individually, college-age anti-Semites feel comfortable enough these days to note publicly, as Duke senior Philip Kurian did recently, that those pesky over-achieving Jews are something of a problem. Inspired by Duke's hosting of the radical Islamist, pro-terror group International Solidarity Movement (to which Rachel Corrie belonged), Kurian unashamedly referenced "the powerful Jewish establishment" and "exorbitant Jewish privilege in the United States" before reaching the crux of his letter to Duke's newspaper the Chronicle: "It is well known that Jews constitute the most privileged 'minority' group in this country. Among the top 10 universities, Jews enjoy shocking overrepresentation."

Note the ironic quotation marks around the word minority, though Jews add up to barely 2 percent of the country's population (one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's); and the word overrepresentation as opposed to "disproportionate representation," whose use would have at least acknowledged Jews' work ethic and devotion to achievement. And then there was "shocking."

But instead of widespread outrage, condemnation, newspaper confiscations, demonstrations about hurt feelings, suspension, expulsion, and even prosecution, which are generally what follow when similar bile is directed at protected "minorities" on campus, Kurian's sentiments earned him nothing more than opprobrium from bloggers generally hailing from the right--Gentile bloggers, mostly. Liberal Jews themselves said little, much as the National Organization for Women fell silent during the Clinton era when the president was proved to be a serial groper; that "D" after his name inoculated him against charges that were similar to--if not more serious than--those that brought the wrath of feminists down on poor Senator Bob Packwood, who had the misfortune of playing serial tonsil hockey with an "R" after his name.

THEREIN LIES the explanation for why American Jews refuse obstinately to accept that the Democratic party's train, which they've ridden since FDR (whose reputation among Jews was less earned than awarded), is now carrying them toward some perilous destination. Sadly, by the time they realize that Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson have given up their conductor seats to Michael Moore and International Solidarity, it'll be too late to get off.

American Jews' allegiance to Democrats is nothing less than a religion. And conversion is considered a sacrilege.

If you ask even the most secular Jew, one who stays home to watch baseball on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, to convert to Christianity--say, in order to marry a shiksa--he'll likely recoil. It's a visceral thing, hatched in the belly eons ago.

So, too, is the notion of pulling the lever for dirty anti-Semite, racist Republicans. That's the catechism. No matter that Republicans booted out David Duke and Patrick Buchanan--or that both of them would find plenty of fellow travelers in today's Democratic party. Catechism states that only Democrats can be authentic liberals.

WHICH IS WHY, once upon a time, it would've given Jews (and all Democrats) pause to hear support for their candidate uttered by the likes of Arafat, Kim Jong Il, and Mahathir Mohamad, the former Malaysian prime minister who endeared himself to billions last year when he opined that "Jews run the world by proxy." Today, such observations are irrelevant to the more important goal of turning George W. Bush out of office. Typical is the email response of a Jewish friend to whom I'd forwarded a Charles Krauthammer column predicting that Kerry will sell out Israel: "Which leaves us . . . Ralph Nader? What folly!!!!" Same with a Jewish woman whose only reaction to every argument on the same subject is to quote chapter and verse from the New York Times editorial page--the bible of liberal Jews.

In their worldview, words are more important than outcomes, especially when those words are uttered by Democrats. Thus, Bill Clinton's can't-we-all-just-get-along peacemaking that relied on the exaltation of Arafat is far preferable to George W. Bush's support for the terror-reducing fence and insistence on new Palestinian leadership--though the former caused the deaths of a thousand innocent Israelis, and the latter has saved innocents on both sides and brought closer the possibility of Palestinians giving up terrorism entirely--which will, of course, bring peace. Instead, Jews circulate angry emails about the lack of Jews in the president's cabinet, as if Clinton's Jewish Agriculture secretary somehow canceled out the shame of Yasser Arafat's permanent White House parking space.

To borrow longshoreman-philosopher Eric Hoffer's phrase, Jewish Democrats are "true believers"--every bit as unquestioning of their faith as evangelicals are. (A year after the Six-Day War, Hoffer had a premonition: "As it goes with Israel," he said, "so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.") And yet they fear evangelicals' unshakeable support for Israel on the grounds that it's biblically based, which is the equivalent of refusing to accept your dog back from the guy who found him after he admits doing it only for the reward. "I fear this presidency," claimed a Jewish man I know, "more than I fear any Arab, Muslim, or al Qaeda terrorist." (This was the same man who emailed me his outrage at there being no Jews in Bush's cabinet.)

Why won't Jews who plan to vote for John Kerry take the senator at his word, and consider the ramifications, when he says that he wants to refract his foreign policy through the prism of the United Nations and the European Union? Nearly one third of the United Nations is comprised of Islamic states, which helps to account for why Israel has been targeted by a relentless barrage of condemnatory resolutions--as well as the disgraceful ruling in the International Court of Justice against the anti-terror fence.

As for Europe, birthplace of anti-Semitism, the European Union publicly wrings its hands over dead Palestinian terrorists but not dead Jewish children and mothers, insisting that there will be peace when Israel withdraws from all so-called Palestinian lands; and if that pullback to the "Auschwitz borders" should someday result in Israeli Jews being driven into the sea, then good riddance. In the unvarnished words of Daniel Bernard, French ambassador to Great Britain, Israel is "a shitty little country" inhabited by "those people" who are putting the world "in danger of World War III."

"F*** the Jews," Republican James Baker snapped during Bush 41's reign more than a decade ago. "They didn't vote for us anyway."

Right he was. And if only 20 percent of them vote for Bush 43, American Jews won't need James Baker--they'll have done it to themselves.

For a supposedly smart people, we can be awfully stupid.

Joel Engel is an author and journalist in Southern California.

HIV-positive Indian has to abort her own foetus

I don't know what part of this story sickens me most. Oh, I know, it was the AIDS-induced abortion-bloody sheets-took it out with her own hands and even cleaned the bed-refuse to treat-India-confidential part:

Health authorities in eastern India began a probe into reports Friday that an HIV-positive woman was forced to perform an abortion on herself after doctors refused help.

The 23-year-old woman was advised to have an abortion after testing positive for the deadly virus, but doctors at a state-run hospital in Kolkata refused to treat her because of her infection.

Medical staff at Kolkata Medical College left pills to induce an abortion by her bedside, said D. Pandey, a doctor at a non-profit group who is the woman's neighbour.

"After taking the pills, she started bleeding and the foetus started coming out. She took it out with her own hands and even cleaned the bed," Pandey told AFP.

The woman who had been six months pregnant was asked to leave the hospital immediately afterward, the doctor said.

People with the HIV virus which is carried in blood and other bodily fluids are sometimes denied access to hospitals and schools in India and face ostracism.

Surya Kant Misra, the health minister of West Bengal state of which Kolkata is the capital, ordered an inquiry into the report after the woman met him Thursday to complain about her treatment. Her name was kept confidential.

Indian premier calls for end to killing of unborn girls

The abortion rate in the US is just as wreckless, but is life respected by any third world country? Via Breitbart:
---------------
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called on parents in India to stop seeing girls as an economic liability and to end the practice of killing unborn female foetuses.

Singh's appeal on India's 59th Independence Day came four days after the grisly discovery of 25 female foetuses from a private clinic in northern Punjab state, which has the country's lowest sex ratio due to rampant female foeticide.

We must end the crime of female foeticide. We must eliminate gender disparity," Singh said in an address to the nation.

"We have a dream of an India in which every woman can feel safe, secure and empowered. Where our mothers, sisters and daughters are assured a life of dignity and personal security," he added.

Centuries of tradition also demand that couples produce at least one male child to carry on the family name.

Many grooms demand dowry well beyond the means of families of their spouse -- demands which often result in the killing of newly-married women.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, India in 2004 posted 19 dowry-related deaths every day but women's organisations say the actual figure is 10 times higher.

Babies aborted for not being perfect in Britain

Well, looks like Brits are not morally or ethically better than the Nazis. From Babies aborted for not being perfect:

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.
A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.'

Akin to the same lack of information that Brits have over their own participation in treacherous behavior towards Jews.

Keyword(s): British treachery

My Wide Blue Seas

My dear friend Hokulea, owner of My Wide Blue Seas, has written five brilliant questions that she would ask God. Hokulea's insight and piercing inquiries made me pause. I repeat one of them here, but please go to My Wide Blue Seas to read more from Hokulea. She's wonderfully talented, keen and perceptive.

Why did you give us such expansive free choice knowing how monstrously we would sin? (abortion, genocide, etc.)

Judge Roy Moore

The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama. Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice law in Alabama. The judge's poem sums it up quite well:

America the Beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain.

From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
and a need to always pray.

We've kept God in our temples,
how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne.

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges
who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not angry,
that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven
and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
and those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
if you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
withdraw His hand from Thee.

~Judge Roy Moore

On Demographics

Each year an estimated 50,000 or more potential Jewish lives are aborted in Israel.

The demographic threat is, by common consensus, the greatest danger to Israel today. Everything from the Gaza withdrawal to hare-brained schemes to convert en masse hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish immigrants is justified in terms of that threat.

The demographic threat is both external -- 2 million Palestinians over whom we have no wish to rule -- and internal -- a rapidly growing and increasingly irredentist Israeli Arab population.

Arabs constitute 20% of the Israeli population. The Israeli Arab population is much younger than the Jewish population -- one-half of Israeli Arabs are under 18, only one-third of Jews are -- and has a birthrate twice that of the Jewish population. Demographically, the situation of Israel is even worse than that of Western Europe, which, at current rates of growth, will be majority Moslem by the end of the century.

Despite the magnitude of the threat, the Israeli government has neglected the easiest and most obvious steps to increase the Jewish population. Each year an estimated 50,000 or more potential Jewish lives are aborted. Twenty thousand abortions are approved by hospital committees, and some experts place the number of illegal abortions as twice that figure.

That's close to 1,000 Jewish lives terminated a week. Compare the number of Israelis killed on the roads -- approximately nine a week in 2003 -- or by terrorists -- four per week.

EFRAT, an organization that works with women contemplating abortion, proves the point. As soon as EFRAT learns of such a woman, one of its nearly 3,000 volunteers, many of them who were themselves helped by EFRAT, contacts the woman. The volunteer offers emotional support and tells the woman that if she delivers her baby, EFRAT will supply her with all the baby equipment and necessities, and will give a check to her local grocery for six months prior to birth and six months thereafter. No theological or ideological arguments are presented to persuade her.

Reducing the number of abortions alone will not turn the demographic tide. Nor will all, or perhaps even most, women who currently undergo abortions be dissuaded by any combination of incentives or more information.

Nevertheless it is a national scandal that thousands more Jewish lives are not saved each year for a mere pittance.

Visit EFRAT's website at http://www.efrat.org.il/ . It is only available in Hebrew.

On Demographics

Why do bad people do bad things?

Folks, I searched and searched today to try to find some web article that would satisfy my desire to find a liberally-biased pattern in Judge Whittemore's jurist history, but I could not find anything. And I thought about why the nation would benefit from my own ego-centric pursuit and, what would the lesson be in this for me to learn? I learned, or I should say, I re-learned that I have a tendency to focus on the evil inclination in humanity, and I ignore the good. I generally am suspicious and suspect others. Fortunately, I am disciplined and I immediately put into practice my resolve to view events and circumstances in life with a more positive approach.

Well, that lasted about an hour.

I can't figure out for the life of me why Judge Whittemore waited until 3:00pm yesterday to hear the opposing sides in this case, and I don't understand why Judge Whittemore waited until this morning to pass his judgement, a delay which in itself was such an unkind act, which served to extend the Schindler's agony. Was Whittemore trying to show his judiciary independence from a cowboy president and his rough rider Congress? Does he want to be appointed to the Supreme Court by Hillary in 2008?

Thomas Sowell in today's TownHall,wrote:

"the extraordinary session of Congress, calling members back from around the country, with the President flying back from his home in Texas in order to be ready to sign legislation dealing with Terri Schiavo, are things that do us credit as a nation. Even if critics who claim that this is being done for political or ideological reasons are partially or even wholly correct, they still miss the point. It is the public's sense of concern -- in some cases, outrage -- that is reflected by their elected epresentatives."

That's one of our problems here, folks; our "elected representatives". Do you know how many House representatives did NOT show up on Sunday night to vote on S. 686, BILL TITLE: For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo? You can see those results here. That's right, 174 elected officials chose to not vote and that broke down to 102 Democrats, 71 Republicans and 1 Independent. President Bush cancelled the remainder of his holiday in Texas Sunday evening to rush back to Washington in order to sign S. 686 which came into public law at 1:11am. Yet, 174 elected officials chose to exclude themselves from daring to have a personal stake in the life of a disabled person.

Thomas Sowell continues:

"The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions. These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?"

And this is exactly what Mark Levin has been teaching us each night as host on Talk Radio WABC and in his brilliant bestseller, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America; the Libs and the Liberal elected representatives - hate when the supremacy of judges is challenged and that is why what Judge Whittemore decided today, despite his un-biased record, must be immediately appealled and re-examined.

Rush Limbaugh said today, "the democratic party stands for abortion, and stands for partial birth abortion and stands for the removal of a feeding tube from a disabled person and they get away with being called a party of civil rights!"

What will come out of this, folks? How will we, as a nation, be redeemed? How will we receive God's Blessing? Whether anyone believes it or not, we are going to be judged in the eyes of God, and what standards do we deserve to be judged by other than by how we choose to end someone else's life? If we continue on the path we're on, Americans should be very frightened. May God have mercy on us on Judgement Day.

cross-posted on Mark Levin Fan

Yasser Arafat, inventor of modern day terrorism, endorses John Kerry for president

Yasser Arafat, inventor of modern day terrorism, endorses John Kerry for president. Enough to convince me I'm on the right track for voting for George Bush for president. I take solace in knowing that a Kerry victory will likely strengthen the Republican Party even more than the blunders Clinton managed in his first 100 days in office. Everyone claims they are not questioning Kerry's patriotism. Why not? Isn't meeting with and giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war unpatriotic? Why shouldn't Kerry use the VP's gay daughter, Mary Cheney, in his campaign? Kerry's been using people all during his campaign. Kerry used his comrades, his leaders, and the wrong war in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry used his Purple Hearts to proclaim himself a war hero in a wrong war in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry used Christopher Reeve's death in his campaign rhetoric. Kerry's using the deaths of American soldiers in a wrong war in his campaign rhetoric. I'm totally convinced that John Kerry and John Edwards should not even be allowed to tour the White House, much less occupy it. Kerry says he believes in a woman's right to privacy when it comes to abortion on demand but Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, says that Mary Cheney's sexuality is "fair game." Just what has Mary Cheney done to make herself "fair game"?

Make no mistake, folks, John Kerry poses a greater threat to our civil liberties and national security than any other presidential candidate in recent history.

So, what's worse, folks: Martha Stewart lying to a judge or John Kerry lying to millions?

Yasser Arafat endorses Kerry

Woman Tells John Kerry She Regrets Her Abortion, Staffer Destroys Her Sign

Senator John Kerry backs abortion. But a woman in Florida who wanted Kerry to know she regretted her abortion says she is glad he saw a sign she carried at a recent campaign event -- even though his staff tore it up afterwards.

After watching the nightly news, Rebecca Porter had a dream envisioning herself letting Kerry know she had an abortion and regretted her decision.

Porter told LifeNews.com that she and a friend went to an event the Kerry campaign had scheduled in Tampa. She brought along a sign that simply read, "My abortion hurt me."

She hoped Kerry would see it, but knowing only a limited number of people were being allowed inside the event, her best prospects were to show it those attending.

"I almost didn't go because doubt and fear was beginning to set in," Porter said. "But I went to hold my sign for the people walking in. I did not go as a Bush supporter or as a Republican, but as a woman hurt by abortion."

Dozens of people walked by and saw her sign.

Some looked away. Wives talked with their husbands. Friends whispered to each other in hushed tones after passing by.

Other came to talk with her and Cindy, but few had anything negative to say.

Porter tells LifeNews.com that one detractor told her he wished the abortion had killed her. His wife elbowed him in the stomach afterwards.

"There was no protest. We were not there to say anything. Just to let our signs speak for us -- and they did, powerfully," Porter, the Florida director of the Operation Outcry Silent No More, said.

The two women were finally able to go inside the event and stand at the back of the crowd. As Kerry finished his speech, he closed by saying he would guarantee that "women would have the right to choose" abortion.

Not long after, Porter made her way to an area where Kerry was shaking hands with a large group of people. She eventually found herself exactly where she hoped she would be -- a few feet away from the man some hope will be the next president.

She held up her sign.

"Then it happened," Porter explains. "He reached up to shake a hand in the back and his eyes went up to my sign. He read it and then he looked into the crowd to see who was holding it -- and he looked me directly in the eyes."

"I hope he saw my pain. I was not angry, just pleading with him to understand. You could see the shock and surprise on his face," Porter said.

But within seconds, a Kerry campaign staff member approached Porter and grabbed her sign.

"You can't have that sign here," the Kerry staffer said.

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

LifeNews.com spoke with a Kerry press assistant who declined to comment. Officials with the Florida Kerry campaign did not return a phone call.

Onlookers were surprised by what they saw and expressed their disagreement. One man walked over to the two women, said he was pro-life and that what happened "wasn't right."

Looking back on her experience, however, Porter is not angry.

"I was not upset. I felt like I had done what the Lord had wanted me to accomplish," she says.

"I hope [Kerry will] remember my sign and my pain in my eyes. I know there were many people laying in their beds that night thinking about their abortions."

Related web sites:
Operation Outcry - http://www.operationoutcry.org

Woman Tells John Kerry She Regrets Her Abortion, Staffer Destroys Her Sign

Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing'

Todd Eastham, a Reuters news service editor, sent an e-mail to a pro-life group last week, criticizing the group's stance on abortion as well as its support of the Bush administration. The angry email has prompted the pro-life group to question the editor's journalistic integrity.

Folks, let's not be too surprised at this; Reuters lost their moral compass decades ago. Listen to what Todd Eastham wrote:

"What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?"

What hostility, Toddy.

In fact, Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, called it "sad but revealing to see an editor for a major news service so casually and gratuitously express such blatant hostility to both the Bush administration and to the right to life of unborn children.

"Apparently, Mr. Eastham feels strongly that abortion is necessary to prevent the birth of children who will otherwise snatch some bread from his mouth," said Johnson. "We can only wonder at how such vehement opinions may color Mr. Eastham's reporting or editing on subjects such as abortion and the Bush administration."

We're with you on that, Mr. Johnson, in fact, you should read what Reuters has to say about Israel and the "poor palestinians".

Reuters Editor's Email 'Sad But Revealing,' Pro-Life Group Says

"Bridget's" self-righteous indignation

Folks, my regular readers already know this but to repeat it for my new readers, I have a notice in my sidebar that I reserve the right to publish e-mails and other text sent to me or placed here by readers of this blog, and these texts include emails, posts, commentaries, and replies to posts regarding and referencing Smooth Stone.

I have never opted to exercise this right that I have reserved because I never thought that, except for the love letters I had received from Debbie Fink, that my readers would be interested in an email volley of really rather ordinary email bitching.

Tonite, however, is not an ordinary nite. Tonite, I have chosen to reproduce my reply to a post from "Bridget". "Bridget" has taken exception to my criticism of Teresa Heinz Kerry and the untoward contributions made by Teresa Heinz Kerry to the elusive Tides Foundation. "Bridget" sought out Smooth Stone, only heaven knows how, and, with self-righteous indignation, had the audacity to tell me that I am no friend of Israel for posting a rumor.

Little does "Bridget" know that she might as well be a bug on my windshield, because no one can tell me that Smooth Stone is no friend of Israel:

Here is my original post and, "Bridget", who hails from the United Kingdom, posted the following comment:

The information about Tides Foundation and Tides Center at the Capital Research Center's web site is false. Please do your readers a favor and research the facts before you post rumors and slander: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp. The CRC is not a reliable source for facts. They make you look bad when you choose them as your source for false rumors. U.S. citizens need accurate information so they can select a government that works for them instead of for large corporations. Be a good neighbor and don't spread false rumors. Israel needs better friends, too.

Rather a rude response from a stranger who spent no more than three and a half minutes here, don't you think, folks?

Here is my response to "Bridget":

Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a “charity” established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed
nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open border activists. Regardless of the activities of the Tides Foundation, what's more important is that my readers know that you, my dear "Bridget", spent no more than three and one half minutes on my website, visiting from the United
Kingdom, and you proceed to dare to judge me and how I might be spreading false rumors on Teresa Heinz Kerry. Who the hell do you think you are? What are YOUR credentials? I have devoted several years of my life to defending the sovereign and legitimate nation of Israel against European Socialists like you, and typically you think you could tell me how to defend Israel in a three and a half minute visit to my site. Well you're a lackey, "Bridget". Heaven only knows who
you work for. If YOU had any integrity, you would have read my site and corroborated my sources and you would have learned that everything you see on this site is corroborated by more than one source. How dare you post here with some dim-witted self-righteous indignation that you know what's better for the United States and Israel moreso than Americans and Israelis. Do me a favor - get lost and go crap on someone else's doorstep. You make yourself look bad. If all you can bring to the table is Maxwell King's defense of his company's behavior, that you're more an idiot than you realize. Israel has a good friend in Smooth Stone. On the other hand, snobby elitist cowards like John Kerry, who didn't even mention Israel in his "acceptance" speech at the DNC, is not. Do give my "regards" to Debbie Fink, another European socialist komrade of yours, I'm sure you know of her porcine existence. I await your further righteous indignation.

Stay tuned, folks; I suspect "Bridget" won't take criticism as well as I do and I promise to reproduce the darling "Bridget's" reply in its entirety.

Cheerio!

Who Is John Kerry?

John Kerry is a flip-flopping Massachusetts Liberal out of touch with America.  John Kerry is a Northeastern Liberal who votes lockstep with Ted Kennedy.  John Kerry claims he's for fiscal responsibility, but votes for higher taxes and is against tax cuts.  Kerry is extreme on abortion, supporting federal funding and irresponsible practices.  John Kerry has a "thin record" on health care reform.  He supports fedreral funding of abortions and partial-birth abortions.   John Kerry has a history of contradicting himself and taking both sides of an issue. 

That's right, folks, John Kerry stands for nothing substantial, nothing meaningful to real Americans, he represents nothing for real Patriotic Americans.   Want proof?   Read the following to see John Kerry's voting record for Eliminating Marriage Penalty For Middle Class, The Patriot Act, The First Gulf War, Gay Marriage Amendment , On Attacking President During Time Of War, Death Penalty For Terrorists , Cuba Sanctions, Federal Health Benefits, The Israel Security Fence  plus many more topics.  Folks, read John Kerry's flip flops for yourself:

John Kerry's Voting Record

Peter Jennings interviews John Kerry. And they say Bush is dumb?

Peter Jennings and John Kerry - two conceited men in one room. Yikes, wonder what the tension was like filming THIS interview. Anyway, what follows is a partial transcript of John Kerry's unintelligible interview.   And they say Bush is dumb?

=====

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate discussed his views on abortion, sex and violence in the entertainment industry, and his upcoming acceptance speech at Democratic National Convention. The following are excerpts from the interview.

Peter Jennings: You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?

Sen. Kerry: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in.

Roe v. Wade has made it very clear what our standard is with respect to viability, what our standard is with respect to rights. I believe in the right to choose, not the government choosing, but an individual, and I defend that.

Jennings: Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say "life begins at conception"?

Kerry: Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard.

Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?

Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins. Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is, no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe v. Wade.

Jennings: Can you imagine yourself ever campaigning against abortion?

Kerry: Well, I don't think — let me tell you very clearly that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And I have very strong feelings that we should talk about abortion in a very realistic way in this country. It is a very complicated, incredibly important moral issue that people have to face, also. And if you talk to any woman, as I have, who has faced that choice or who's been raped or who's suffered incest or who's faced that kind of choice, there are huge moral implications.

I think leadership needs to honor that, those moral implications, appropriately, and I think we need to adhere to the standard that Bill Clinton, in fact, so adeptly framed, that abortion should be rare, but legal and safe. And that's the standard that I apply. But I think we should talk more about alternatives to abortion.

Jennings: If I were really skeptical, Senator, I would say that when you use the phrase "life begins at conception," you're attempting to speak to those people for whom that is a slogan, making them totally opposed to abortion.

Kerry: Not in the least. It's a belief that is a belief of mine. It's consistent with everything I've always said over 35 years of public life. It is not a new statement, but it is consistent with my personal belief system about who chooses and what happens. I do believe we should talk about alternatives to abortion. I think we should talk about adoption. I think we should talk about, I think it is responsible to talk about abstinence, but I also believe you should talk about proper education of people — sex education. You need to have proper knowledge about use of condoms to avoid AIDS. You need to be smart about these things. So what we need to do is have an honest dialogue and not succumb to the cynicism that sort of reduces these things to simplicity. It's not simple. It's a very complicated, highly emotional, very searing decision. I don't want the government making that decision for people, and that is a bedrock belief. But it doesn't change what I believe about how life goes on.

Folks, the interview with the scariest man in America can be found here:
ABCNEWS.com : Peter Jennings Interviews Sen. John Kerry

Crush Kerry

From Crush Kerry
=====
As many Kerry Crushers know, the Culture of Death will descend on Washington, DC this weekend for an event dubbed the "March for Women's Lives." This crass title assumes none of the three million fetuses aborted this year will be female, of course.

John Kerry will be there, no doubt, although he once was less a slave to the pro-abortion movement.

Also in attendance will be the many liberal, airheaded libertines from Hollywood who routinely push their moral relativism on the rest of us out here in middle America. This year, we figured we'd out this liberals.

Shame on them for using their celebrity status to promote the snuffing of life from the innocent unborn.

Sadly, you'll recognize many of the names:

List of Pro-Abortion celebrities who will attend "pro-choice" March along with John Kerry:

Margie Adam
Christina Aguilera
Jennifer Aniston
Curtis Armstrong
Elaine Aronson
Bea Arthur
Ed Asner
Kevin Bacon
Alec Baldwin
William Baldwin
Meredith Baxter
Shari Belafonte
Maria Bello
Polly Bergen
Thora Birch
Amy Brenneman
Betty Buckley
Jessica Capshaw
Lynda Carter
Stockard Channing
Jill Clayburgh
Kate Clinton
Glenn Close
Cindy Crawford
Sheryl Crow
Alan Cumming
Tyne Daly
Blythe Danner
Kristin Davis
Ossie Davis
Dana Delany
Laura Dern
Ellen DeGeneres
Ani DiFranco
Illeana Douglas
Denise Dowse
Fran Drescher
Kirsten Dunst
David Eigenberg
Hector Elizondo
Emme
Eve Ensler
Giancarlo Esposito
Melissa Etheridge
Morgan Fairchild
Edie Falco
Frances Fisher
Calista Flockhart
Jane Fonda
Bonnie Franklin
Janeane Garofalo
Ana Gasteyer
Indigo Girls
Annabeth Gish
Whoopi Goldberg
Lauren Graham
Maggie Gyllenhaal
LisaGay Hamilton
Ben Harper
Ed Harris
Salma Hayek
Marg Helgenberger
Isabella Hofmann
Helen Hunt
Amy Jo Johnson
Kathryn Joosten
Ashley Judd
Catherine Keener
Carole King
Swoosie Kurt
Christine Lahti
Sanaa Lathan
Sharon Lawrence
Lisa Loeb
Amy Madigan
Natalie Maines
Wendie Malick
Joshua Malina
Camryn Manheim
Frances McDormand
Ewan McGregor
Marilyn McIntyre
Sarah McLachlan
Moby
Demi Moore
Julianne Moore
Alanis Morissette
Kathy Najimy
Alyson Palmer
Joe Pantoliano
Mary-Louise Parker
Adrian Pasdar
Pink
Martha Plimpton
Doris Roberts
Paul Rudd
Susan Sarandon
Campbell Scott
Kyra Sedgwick
Martin Sheen
Cybill Shepherd
SONiA
Fisher Stevens
Gloria Steinem
Julia Stiles
Corky and Mike Stoller
Sharon Stone
Amber Tamblyn
Mary Testa
Charlize Theron
Uma Thurman
Heather Tom
Stanley Tucci
Kathleen Turner
Ted Turner
Sarah Weddington
Audrey Wells
Bradley Whitford
Alfre Woodard
Thom Yorke
Amy Ziff
Elizabeth Ziff