State attorneys general challenge the Senate health care bill

Thirteen state attorneys general are challenging the constitutionality of a provision in the Senate health care bill which was passed just as Santa slid down the chimney at the White House. This provision basically bought Senator Ben Nelson's vote by providing federal aid to Nelson's home state of Nebraska. (Nelson's vote was the deciding vote which broke the Republican filibuster.) I cannot say for sure if this provision is unconstitutional, but I can state with certainty that it's pretty damn weaselly. I applaud these attorneys general for their efforts to bring this to the attention of the voters.

Source: AP

Merry Christmas!

All praise to Thee, Eternal Lord,
Clothed in a garb of flesh and blood;
Choosing a manger for Thy throne
While worlds on worlds are Thine alone.

Once did the skies before Thee bow;
A virgin's arms contain Thee now:
Angels who did in Thee rejoice
Now listen for Thine infant voice.

A little child, Thou art our guest
That weary ones in Thee may rest;
Forlorn and lowly is Thy birth
That we may rise to heav'n from earth.

Thou comest in the darksome night
To make us children of the light,
To make us, in the realms divine,
Like Thine own angels round Thee shine.

All this for us Thy love hath done;
By this to Thee our love is won:
For this we tune our cheerful lays
And shout our thanks in ceaseless praise!
~Martin Luther, 1524

Government's Abortion Mandate

Here's a great editorial in The Washington Times today about Ben Nelson's "line in the sand." http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/22/governments-abortion-mandate/.

The whole article is worth reading, but the last paragraph really stood out to me: "Many Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word, but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable than that."

ObamaCare, Part II

Since my last post, the "logjam" in the Senate has been broken and ObamaCare appears well on its way to passage in the Senate. Ben Nelson, the last Democratic holdout against the bill, caved under intense pressure from his Democratic colleagues and agreed to vote for cloture. At 1:19 in the morning, the U.S. Senate voted 60-40 to end debate on Harry Reid's manager's amendment, which essentially re-writes the health care bill (the amendment is almost 500 pages I believe). Not a single Republican voted for this amendment, not even liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins of Maine. The final bill will probably be rammed through on Christmas Eve, with little or no debate and no Republican votes. This is health care reform, Democrat-style: votes in the middle of the night, secret amendments, back-door deals, stifled debate, and hyper-partisanship.

Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!

Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.

I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.

Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.

The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.

Change Nobody Believes In

Check out this great article in the Wall Street Journal. This article does an excellent job of explaining both the the terrible content of the Senate health care bill and also the disgraceful tactics of the Democratic majority in ramming it through.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

The Short But Happy History of ObamaCare

I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile...life has been busy and I've found that listening to Christmas music is much more soothing than talk radio!

If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.

The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?

Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.

So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.

Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!

Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.

Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.

Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.

Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.

Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.

This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.

Statesman Harry

Yesterday, on the Senate floor, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, gave a speech on health care in which he said the following:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Reid is the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, and the person picked by the Democrats in the Senate to be their leader. Forget about the fact that he's a liberal and a generally unhappy person (and struggles to put together coherent sentences in speeches). He's not even an adult. He's not even capable of behaving in a civilized way on the Senate floor. I thought it was pretty bad a few months ago when he said that angry citizens (not politicians or pundits) speaking at townhall meetings were "evilmongers." Now Reid has shattered his own record for partisan rancor by comparing senators who oppose his health care bill to people who support slavery and oppose the right of blacks and women to vote. If you don't support government-run health care, you're pro-slavery, anti-woman, and racist. This kind of demagoguery has no place inside the walls of the Capitol Hill, but is especially disgraceful coming from the purported leader of the U.S. Senate. No wonder our country is so politically divided. We are represented at the highest levels of government by petty, uncivilized children. Harry Reid is an embarrassment to his party and to his country.

Obama's answer to all of America's problems

As we all know, Barry is about to give a speech on jobs today. If his ten months in office are any indication of what he will say, we can expect to hear that more Government intervention is the answer. As his approval rating fall to the lowest of any president at this time in his presidency, 47%, it is really hard for me to understand why this man continues to ignore the American people.

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal discussing what we will hear today during Barry's speech.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574582312065087466.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Mark Levin Speech - Follow-up

Sorry it has taken me so long to follow up on my previous post last week about my opportunity to hear Mark Levin speak at the Churchill Dinner in Washington, DC. It was so encouraging to spend an evening with like-minded people who care about our Constitution and want to see our country prosper as a free society instead of a socialist republic. There were probably around 350 people in attendance, and after a delicious dinner the Hillsdale College President Larry Arne spoke for about 30 minutes, followed by a 30 minute speech by Mark Levin. Pat Sajak, the host of Wheel of Fortune and the Vice-President of the Hillsdale College Board of Trustees, gave a hilarious toast to Winston Churchill to close the evening.

Both Arne and Levin gave great speeches, and the basic message of both was similar. There is a serious attack currently being launched against our Constitution and against the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution. This attack is being perpetrated by our president and by our Congress, as well as unelected judges. The essential fight is between liberty and tyranny, between constitutionalism and statism. It is a brazen attempt to transform our country from a constitutional republic into a socialist state. The real power in a constitutional republic rests with the civil society, which is made up of free individuals pursuing their God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Its constitutionally-limited government is the servant to the people, whose rights are guaranteed by their Creator. The real power in a socialist state rests with an all-powerful federal government, which takes most of people's money through taxation and then distributes it back to its citizen-slaves as it deems best. The people's rights are "guaranteed" by a government that provides cradle-to-grave entitlements and regulates their every activity, reducing them to virtual slavery and trampling on the Constitution. Our country, though founded as a constitutional republic, has been steadily moving toward socialism for many years, starting with Abraham Lincoln and accelerating in this direction under FDR. Obama and our current Congress are more brazen about their socialist/Marxist intentions and more determined to utterly subjugate the American people under the federal government's control than any of their predecessors. Their two biggest power grabs at the moment are health care "reform" and "climate change" regulation, both of which strike at the heart of individual liberty.

What our country needs -- desperately needs -- right now is for individual citizens to step forward and "take back" our country by electing representatives who treasure our constitutional freedoms. Levin and Arne seemed optimistic that this will happen in future elections. I wish I could say I am as optimistic as they are. When I look at our country I see generations of people who, thanks to our government-run schools, are ignorant about American history and traditions, ignorant of the Constitution and the Founders, and ignorant of the Bible and our Judeo-Christian heritage which provides a basis for the dignity and worth of the individual. I see a country populated with people who have already become dependent on the government and who demand equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I see lazy citizens who think that they owe their country nothing and that their country owes them everything, including a good education, a good job, good health care, and a comfortable life. I see a population that largely seems to reject moral absolutes and deny even the possibility of truth, that views its own existence and the existence of the universe as a meaningless accident of nature, and that seems incapable even of logically deducing the consequences of ideas. Maybe I'm too harsh in my assessment, but how can such a citizenry take back our country? It is likely that in the short-term, people's economic misery will drive them to elect new representatives in 2010 or 2012, but for any lasting change to take place there must be a change in people's hearts, beliefs, and attitudes. I pray this will happen, but it will take a miracle.

Levin closed his speech (and his book) with a quote from a president who truly understood liberty, Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Mark Levin

I'm attending the Churchill Dinner tonight at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. This is a special event put on by Hillsdale College, and the keynote speaker is Mark Levin. For those who don't recognize those names, Hillsdale College is one of the premier conservative colleges in the country and one of only two accredited universities that do not accept any government funding (the other one is my alma mater, Grove City College). And Mark Levin is one of the most successful talk radio hosts in the country and has authored the runaway bestseller Liberty and Tyranny. Anyone who has read or listened to Levin knows what a brilliant political thinker he is and how well he understand American history and government. I can't wait to give an update tomorrow on his speech!

Follow-up on Crisis Pregnancy Center Bill

My wife and I attended the Montgomery County Council public hearing last night, per my previous post. It was truly encouraging to see how many people cared enough to show up at the hearing to oppose the legislation. We arrived about 20 minutes before the start of the hearing, and the hearing room (which apparently seats about 200 people or so) was already completely full! We were turned away at the door and had to go to the overflow room downstairs. There were about 20 people from my church just in the overflow room, and probably more upstairs in the hearing room. By the time the hearing started, the overflow room was completely full (definitely over 100), with a large number of people standing because there were not enough seats. Apparently, there were still more people directed to an additional overflow conference room. Something tells me this kind of turnout is unusual for a county council hearing! I'd say about 90% of the people in the overflow room had stickers indicating their opposition to the legislation; I didn't see a single person in the overflow room wearing a sticker indicating support for it. I'm guessing that there was an equally large majority of the hearing room audience that was in strong opposition.

Only a small number of people got to actually speak at the hearing, but I think the county council got the message loud and clear that there a lot of people that feel strongly about this issue. Obviously, councilmembers were aware that both the hearing room and the overflow room were completely full! One of the things that struck me about the hearing was that almost every speaker in favor of the bill was a spokesperson or member of one of three national organizations: National Organization of Women, National Abortion Rights & Reproductive League (NARAL), and Planned Parenthood. Obviously, all of these groups are abortion providers or abortion advocacy groups. Speakers against the bill included not only directors of the pregnancy centers, but also people from other charitable groups that work with the pregnancy centers, people who have used the services of the pregnancy centers, pregnancy center volunteers, legal experts, and individuals from the community not affiliated with any organization. The representatives from the big abortion groups kept saying that the pregnancy centers were giving out false information and hurting women in crisis -- but where were all these supposed victims? Not one of them came forward to testify. The only "studies" done on this misinformation were done by NARAL -- not exactly an unbiased source. In the meantime, the pregnancy center directors stated that their questionnaires show that their clients are 99% satisfied and that none have filed formal complaints against the centers -- pretty significant since these most of these centers have been around for 20 to 40 years. It would certainly appear, from the composition of the attendees and the speakers, that the only "victims" of the pregnancy centers are the abortion clinics that are losing business and profits because of the existence and success of the pregnancy centers.

The speakers against the legislation brought up several outstanding points. One was from an attorney who pointed out that the regulations in the bill open the pregnancy centers up to significant risk of costly litigation. Since the bill requires that each client be orally given certain disclaimers in a way that the clients can "reasonably understand," it would be easy for people looking to make trouble to claim that a center did not tell them all the required information or that they did not understand what they were told. The pregnancy centers have very limited resources and cannot afford to defend themselves against such claims or to pay the fines and penalties that could result from such claims.

Another attorney pointed out that this bill violates the Constitution by prohibiting "viewpoint" speech by a private organization. Remember, this legislation does not apply to any organizations that provide abortion services. It targets only organizations that are pro-life. If the council really wanted to make sure women were informed of all their options, they would propose disclosure requirements that equally apply to pro-life organizations and abortion providers. The unfair singling out of pregnancy centers shows that the real purpose behind this legislation is to attempt to intimidate and silence the pro-life viewpoint.

A private citizen pointed out that this legislation is analogous to bullies beating up a little kid on the playground. The bullies are the abortion clinics, which are supported with government funds, make significant profits, and have large, well-funded lobbying groups supporting them. They are beating up on the pregnancy centers, which take no government money, are completely non-profit, and have very limited resources. Another private citizen pointed out how much these non-profit organizations do for the county without adding a penny to its budget. Especially in this time of economic recession, how foolish for the county to put in place legislation that hurts organizations that are doing so much to help poor people!

I'm very encouraged that so many private citizens made their voices heard last night, and I'm confident that if turnout was so high for a hearing, many more people have been contacting the council about this. I'm praying that this public outcry will cause the council to back off and vote down this terrible bill.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Under Attack

People who oppose abortion are often branded as being hateful, intolerant people who are indifferent or even hostile to the needs and struggles of women. Thanks to the media, the prevailing image many people have of the pro-life ("anti-abortion") movement is an angry-looking person waving a large homemade sign outside an abortion clinic.

What the media won't tell you about is the network of crisis pregnancy centers throughout this country run by caring pro-life volunteers. These pregnancy centers exist for the sole purpose of helping pregnant women. They provide some or all of the following services completely free of charge: pregnancy tests, pregnancy counseling, adoption referrals, medical care referrals, parenting classes and programs, post-abortion counseling, and baby care items like maternity and baby clothes, baby furniture, diapers, and formula. Some of them are also licensed medical clinics with doctors and nurses on staff and provide sonograms, STD testing, and other medical treatment. Medical clinics that provide abortion services generally view abortion as the default solution for an unwanted pregnancy and are not required to inform women about alternatives to abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers are often the only places pregnant women can go to find out about their full range of options and to receive assistance and support if they choose to carry their pregnancy to term. Unlike most health clinics that perform abortions, these pregnancy centers receive no government money, provide their services free of charge, are completely non-profit, and are mostly staffed by unpaid volunteers who donate their time because they care. They receive their funding from charitable donations by churches and individuals.

Sadly, these pregnancy centers are now under attack in the very county in which I live -- Montgomery County, Maryland. Our county council has proposed legislation that would force the three limited-service pregnancy centers in our county to disclose to all clients the following information:
1. The information the pregnancy center provides to them is not intended to be medical advice.
2. The information the pregnancy center provides to them is not intended to establish a doctor-patient relationship
3. They should consult with a health care provider before making any decision regarding their pregnancy.

At first glance, these requirements may seem fairly harmless. But in fact, they strike at the heart of the mission of these pregnancy centers. These centers exist to provide information about the alternatives to abortion and to provide encouragement and assistance for women who want to have their babies. If they are forced to provide disclaimers and to tell women to go somewhere else besides their pregnancy center to get advice, then they are being forced by law to undermine their own message. And remember -- these pregnancy centers are private, non-profit, faith-based charitable organizations. They do not receive a dime from Montgomery County. What right does the government have to dictate to them what to say to their clients? Such government interference in the operation of charitable organizations establishes a dangerous precedent that opens the door to much more serious abuses in the future.

Furthermore, this legislation specifically targets pregnancy centers, while exempting abortion clinics from any disclosure requirements whatsoever. Abortion clinics receive government funds and operate to make a profit -- shouldn't they at least be required to tell women all their pregnancy options? The fact that crisis pregnancy centers are alone singled out for regulation by the county speaks volumes about the real intentions of the county council. The point of this regulation is not to help women -- it is to attack the pro-life message of crisis pregnancy centers by adding burdensome government mandates. And guess who is behind this legislation? Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights and Reproductive League, and other abortion advocacy groups. Remember, abortion is a multi-million dollar industry in this country. Planned Parenthood makes a huge profit from abortion services, and the pregnancy centers are hurting their business and their profits. They see an opportunity in ultra-liberal Montgomery County to try to silence the pro-life message, and they are going for it.

If this legislation passes, it will be the first law ever in this country regulating non-profit pregnancy centers. Even the Washington Post, not exactly known for its pro-life views, has editorialized against this legislation, saying that it is flawed and should be rejected. For those who live in Montgomery County, please contact the councilmember from your district as well as the four at-large councilmembers and ask them to vote against this legislation. Most of the councilmembers have announced in favor of the bill, but they could change their mind if they hear from enough of their constituents. Click on this link to find the phone numbers and email addresses of the members of the county council: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/csltmpl.asp?url=/content/council/contact.asp. Also, please consider attending a public hearing on this issue. I am attending one scheduled for tonight (December 1) at 7:30 pm in Rockville. (I think there may be another one on December 3 as well.) Probably most of my readers do not live in Montgomery County, but you can still pray! Please pray that the county council will have a change of heart and reject this dangerous legislation. And consider supporting the crisis pregnancy centers in your area. They are doing so much to help needy women throughout this country, and they need our support.

I need an answer.

1. Why is Barry the only president to seal his transcripts?
2. Why can he not produce a birth certificate?
3. What information is he hiding from by sealing his transcripts?

Economic Non-Recovery

Check out this great article in the Wall Street Journal about what Congress and the President are doing to ensure a non-recovery from this recession.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537490451978558.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Sarah Palin Goes Rogue

Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue has hit the bookstores, and she is putting herself front and center with numerous high-profile interviews and public appearances around the country. Her book is already a New York Times bestseller, and she attracts large, enthusiastic crowds wherever she goes. Speculation is swirling about the possibility of a presidential run in 2012. Certainly, there are few political figures who attract this much attention.

But obviously, much of the attention is less than positive. Because there is probably no other political figure in recent memory who has been more viciously attacked and hated than Sarah Palin. Within days of her surprising ascension to the GOP vice-presidential ticket, the non-partisan media began slamming her. They sent hordes of journalists to Alaska to try to dig up dirt from her past (how many journalists do you think they sent to investigate Obama's Chicago thug ties?). They accused her of censoring library books while mayor of Wasilla and gleefully jumped on an obviously politically-motivated ethics investigation against her in Alaska. (Both stories were later proved to be completely bogus.) They slammed her for going back to work as governor of Alaska within days of the birth of her son, and authoritatively pronounced that she had no right to be running for vice-president when she had a special-needs child she should be attending to (remember, a woman's place is in the home!). They ridiculed her for her small town accent and her colloquialisms. The major networks got their top anchors to belittle her in condescending interviews (Charlie Gibson) and to ask her "gotcha" questions to try to embarrass her (Katie Couric). They smeared her family and accused her of negligence because her teenage daughter was pregnant. They made nasty insinuations that one of her kids was really her daughter's kid. They relentlessly attacked her for being badly unqualified for the vice-presidency, conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama was just as unqualified -- and was running for an even higher position! And of course, they enlisted a slew of Hollywood celebrities to add their opinion of her, using the requisite four-letter words. Even George W. Bush wasn't treated that badly -- and that's saying something. All this, of course, was in contradistinction to Barack Obama, The Chosen One, who got relentlessly positive press coverage despite ties to some very questionable people (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko).

Now Sarah Palin is out to remake her reputation. She is telling the world about the way that the McCain team treated her and how they kept her from being herself during the 2008 campaign. She is speaking out on issues she cares about. And what is the result? The usual suspects are up to their old tricks. In her interview with Barbara Walters, the video camera zoomed in as close as possible to her face, a well-known device used to try to make someone appear less honest. Newsweek did a cover hit piece article on her with this even-handed title: "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah? She's Bad News for the GOP -- and For Everybody Else, Too." Of course, the cover had a photo of her in short shorts taken for a running magazine -- intended to marginalize her to the status of a model rather than a serious political figure. The Associated Press hired eleven factcheckers to analyze her new book, page by page, for errors. (How many factcheckers do you think they hired for Obama's book? Zero.) Martha Stewart remarked that she was a "very dangerous" person, while comedian George Lopez showed his funny side by calling her a "piece of ****" and making obscene comments about her daughter. Oh, and of course, they slam her for daring to defend herself too. As Alan Colmes so wisely pointed out on the O'Reilly Factor, her book is full of whining and playing the victim. You see, the media has the right to declare open season on Palin, but she must never, under any circumstances, attempt to reply to any of the attacks. Because then she is "playing the victim"!

Here's the bottom line: the media and the Democrats hate Sarah Palin because she is a beautiful, successful, Republican woman. She exemplifies every value they hate: evangelical Christianity, pro-life beliefs, small-town values, a traditional family, and unapologetically conservative views. From the moment she came onto the national stage, our elite liberal institutions determined to destroy her reputation beyond hope of recovery. And they have done everything in their power to carry out that determination. She's not the first person the media has done this to -- Dan Quayle comes to mind -- but the frenzy of hate is unprecedented.

Now don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin did not run a flawless campaign in 2008, and some of her mistakes played into the image the mainstream media created for her. They were understandable, given her sudden and unexpected thrust into the limelight, but that didn't change the harm to her reputation. Even many conservatives are wary of her. To speak up for Sarah Palin is to invite ridicule in most cases. But I think it's important for conservatives to realize that the prevailing image of Sarah Palin is not an accurate one. It's an image completely fabricated by the media. And if they can do that to Palin, they can do that to any conservative. Instead of jumping on the bash-Palin bandwagon, conservatives should speak out against the vicious and unfair attacks against her. Palin's reputation may be ruined to such an extent that it would be unwise to nominate her for president in 2012. But that certainly shouldn't stop us from fighting for truth. The embarrassment here is not Sarah Palin. The embarrassment is our mainstream media, which has given up even the pretense of objectivity.

Lindsay Graham Destroys Eric Holder

Check out this video of Lindsay Graham destroying Eric Holder. The only disappointment is when Graham calls Eric Holder a "good man." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4.

Families of 9/11 Speak Out

Check out this letter to Obama, signed by many, many family members of 9/11 victims, strongly urging him to rethink his administration's irresponsible decision to have Mohammed tried in New York civilian courts. http://www.thebravest.com/ObamaLetter110909.htm.

In my previous post on this topic, I failed to mention how much pain this decision would bring to the families of the victims -- especially since Mohammed had already agreed to plead guilty and face execution under a military commission. Now this forces the victims' loved ones, who have already suffered so much, to have to go through the whole painful ordeal again -- in a public courtroom on a national stage, with the chance that the 9/11 mastermind might actually go free. Doubtless Mohammed will do everything possible to insult the U.S. and his victims and to re-open painful wounds and memories from that dreadful day -- which will inspire terrorists everywhere while demoralizing lovers of freedom here and around the world.

Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was killed by Mohammed in Pakistan. Pearl's father is speaking out about this, saying that the decision made him "sick to the stomach" since it would give the mass murderer the chance to "boast about his cruelty." He adds in an interview with the New York Post, "I don't want to hear every morning in the papers what KSM did. Danny was killed once. Now he will be killed 10 times a day. Leave him alone."

And now we hear that Obama wants to transfer all the detained overseas enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to some detention center in Illinois, in the heart of America. What is our president thinking? His left-wing ideology is leading our country toward utter ruin.

Obama Administration vs. America, Part 239

Honestly, I would like this blog to be able to focus on something other than criticizing the Obama Administration. But almost every day, Obama and his administration are responsible for some new outrage. Just when I tell myself, "This is as bad as it gets," Obama and his cronies do something even worse that catches me off guard. I'm tired of being outraged. I wish Obama would do something bipartisan or patriotic so I could give him a little bit of credit for being in some way up to the task of being the leader of the free world. I'm still waiting.

The latest outrage is yesterday's announcement by Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, that top al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators will be brought to New York City and tried in civilian courts for their roles in the 9/11 attacks. Mohammed, of course, is the admitted mastermind of the World Trade Center attacks. This is an outrageous decision for the following reasons:

1. Mohammed and other al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as the other Guanatanamo Bay detainees, are not U.S. citizens. They are foreign enemy combatants and part of an organization that is at war with our country. For this reason, these terrorists do have not constitutional rights and are in no way subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Holder's decision grants these terrorists rights that do not belong to them -- and should not belong to them.

2. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts makes it far more difficult to prosecute them effectively. Remember -- these terrorists were detained under the laws of war. Some of them, including Mohammed, were subject to enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding. They were not read their Miranda rights and did not receive lawyers. Much of the evidence against them may not even be admissible in court. Left-wing, terrorist-sympathizing defense attorneys will have a field day with these cases. They will bombard the court with pre-trial motions and motions to dismiss and attempts to free the defendants based on technicalities. They will claim that these terrorists were tortured, that they were denied access to legal help, that they were held without proper evidence, and that their confessions were coerced. They could use all sorts of legal tactics to delay these cases for months or even years. We have all heard horror stories about corrupt, left-wing federal judges who award old ladies millions for spilling coffee on themselves and give child rapists three months in jail. What's to prevent such a judge from acquitting one or more of these terrorists because of the prosecution's failure to meet due process requirements, or to make a point about torture or war-time detention? These men are extremely dangerous terrorists, and we must never open the door to the possibility that any of them could be set free.

3. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts risks the exposure of intelligence methods and sources and other confidential information that could jeopardize U.S. national security. U.S. civilian courts have very burdensome discovery and witness-confrontation rules that could force the government to disclose a huge amount of classified intelligence information. This is dangerous to our country because it could give our enemies a great deal of insight into our methods and activities in the War on Terror which they will not hesitate to use against us. Bin Laden gained valuable information from the 1995 trial of one of the bombers of the World Trade Center, which led him to flee from Sudan to Afghanistan. Also, such a disclosure of U.S. national security secrets will discourage cooperation from intelligence sources and foreign intelligence services, leaving us even more vulnerable to terrorism.

4. Trying these terrorists in civilian courts gives the terrorists exactly what they want -- a big microphone to spout their hatred and contempt for the U.S. The civilian trial of the 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, turned into a circus. No one doubts that Mohammed is guilty. He and his lawyers will use his trial not to argue for his innocence, but instead to try to embarrass the United States military and the CIA while emboldening terrorist sympathizers around the world.

5. A civilian trial for al-Qaeda terrorists in New York is a huge security risk. Bustling, densely-populated Manhattan is already a bull's eye for terrorism, and a public trial of al-Qaeda members makes it worse. Our country will pay a huge amount of money for top-level security at these trials, and still run the risk of inviting terrorist attacks that could cost many lives.

6. Our country has a long history of trying foreign enemy combatants in special military tribunals during wartime. In 1942, eight Nazis who sneaked into the U.S. were tried by a military tribunal and hanged. And make no mistake about it -- we are in a war against radical Islamic terrorism. The Fort Hood attacks are just the latest reminder of that sobering truth. Military tribunals are not against the rule of law -- they are part of the rule of law. The 2006 Military Commissions Act was passed to establish a detailed legal process for detainees in response to a Supreme Court ruling and received bipartisan Congressional support. These commissions, held at the impenetrable Guantanamo Bay fortress, were widely considered to be impartial and effective. They provided very generous due process protections for wartime combatants, but ensured that information vital to our national security would not be disclosed. Such a commission had already been established for Mohammed and his fellow terrorists, and they had already agreed to plead guilty and accept execution. Yet Obama has broken with this long American tradition and discontinued this system of military commissions.

7. Obama apparently thinks this decision will reduce or eliminate radical Muslim hostility to the U.S. This is ludicrous. Obama has taken a much softer approach to terrorism than his White House predecessor, and the result has been a significant increase in attempted terrorist attacks on our soil. Nearly half of all the attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. targets that have occurred since 9/11 have occurred in the past seven months -- since Obama took office. He has also taken a conciliatory approach toward the worlds' #1 terrorist-sponsoring country, Iran, which has produced no positive results or cooperation whatsoever. Obama's approach is interpreted as weakness and lack of resolve on the part of our enemies, and they appear to be more emboldened than they have been in quite some time.

In summary, this is a terrible idea born out of Obama's twisted left-wing ideology. It shows that the Obama Administration does not take terrorism seriously. It is giving these terrorists far more respect and far more rights than they deserve and allowing them to use our country's institutions against us. It emboldens other terrorists around the world. It is putting our national security and confidential intelligence information at risk. It is creating the possibility that dangerous terrorists might be set free. It shows a dangerous lack of resolve during wartime. May God have mercy on our country.

Dishonesty in the abortion debate

I found this video from CNN on Reasoned Audacity. The video, which includes statements by Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood regarding the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, is a good example of the confusion and dishonesty surrounding the abortion debate.

Here's a link to the text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment so you can see for yourself what it does and does not say.

Now here are a couple quotes by Cecile Richards about the amendment.

The intent of this amendment was to ensure that no one under health care reform could purchase a plan that included abortion coverage.
...
It's a very far-reaching amendment that would fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care.

Anyone who has read the amendment should know that these are complete lies. The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which passed the House and is now a part of the medical care bill in the Senate) does nothing except to maintain the status quo with regard to federal funding for abortions. Federal funding for abortions under most federal programs is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment only applies these same restrictions to the 1990-page monstrosity under debate right now.


Besides prohibiting federal funding for abortions, this amendment specifically says that nothing in the amendment prohibits private insurance companies from covering abortion procedures. It is nothing short of dishonesty for Cecile Richards to say that this amendment would "fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care".

[Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that somebody would need insurance for abortions? People usually buy insurance for unexpected situations, like a car accident or brain cancer (not that I would ever equate a pregnancy with those things). I would think that most people know where babies come from and could take the appropriate measures ahead of time if they do not want to have a baby. ("I'm pregnant? How on EARTH did that happen?")]

In addition to the dishonest statements by Cecile Richards, the CNN video contains misleading graphics. As correspondent Dana Bash discusses the restrictions on federal funding for abortion under the proposed bill, the following graphic appears:







While this graphic is on the screen, Dana Bash says, "Private insurance in a new government-regulated exchange would also be prohibited from offering abortion coverage to anyone getting taxpayer money for health care." This is basically true, but the graphic suggests that it would be illegal for private insurance companies to pay for abortions at all. (At the beginning of the video, she also refers to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment as "an amendment that restricts abortion".)

During the debate on the House floor, Mike Pence (R-IN) had the following insight:

Ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, but it’s also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans and use them to provide for a procedure that they find morally offensive.

Advocates of abortion rights are quite narrow in their support for "choice", at least as it concerns the "choice" of taxpayers in how their money is used. To Cecile Richards and other pro-abortion advocates, the only choice which is sacred is the choice of a woman to kill her child in the womb.

Sad Commentary on our President

November 9, 2009 was an important anniversary -- the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is one of the most significant events in modern history, and it came about largely through the bold and courageous leadership of President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in confronting the evils of Soviet Communism.

In fact, it was so important...that President Obama, who was perfectly willing to fly to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago getting the Olympics, was unable to make time in his busy schedule to attend. He sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead, who gave a brief speech at the Brandenburg Gate, and then introduced Obama, who gave a brief speech by video.

Obama's and Clinton's speeches are an embarrassment. Neither one of them contains a single mention of the Soviet Union, Communism, Ronald Reagan, or Margaret Thatcher. Clinton singles out numerous people groups for praise, but completely omits praise for the leading role of the U.S. and its military. Both speeches make vague references to "tyranny" and an "iron curtain" but say nothing about the nature of this tyranny or how it was defeated. Clinton provides this moral lesson from the fall the Berlin Wall: "There are still millions across our world who are separated – maybe not by walls, maybe not by barbed wire, although that still exists – but who are separated from loved ones, who are kept down and behind, unable to fulfill their own destinies." What pathetic pablum. It sounds like she's getting ready to launch into a speech advocating universal health care. What about the evils of tyranny globally? What about the importance of courageously speaking out in favor of freedom and against Communism and other forms of totalitarianism, and the necessity of confronting them and defeating them with actions, including force? Those are the real lessons of the fall of the Berlin Wall. But Hillary just wants us all to get along and work together to help people reunite with their loved ones.

The biggest embarrassment of all was the fact that Obama was the only American even mentioned in either speech. Leave it to Obama to make even the fall of the Berlin Wall about himself. Clinton closed her speech by saying, "I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts." Awww. Then Obama rambled on for a couple of minutes, making a few vague references to historical events before getting to the really important point about the fall of the Berlin Wall: “Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it."

You know, it wouldn't be so bad if this were the first time Obama had showed this incredible egotism. But it's not. When Obama spoke to the UN General Assembly in September, he had this to say: "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." As far as Obama is concerned, American history began when he took office. He is oblivious to the greatness of our country and its grand history of protecting the innocent and promoting democracy and freedom around the world. The best thing he can think of about America is his election and presidency. Or as Michelle Obama put it, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." The overwhelming narcissism is sickening, but the complete ignorance of history and inability to demonstrate pride in the country he was elected to represent on the world stage is even worse. America has a proud history, a great record of accomplishments, and values that are worth celebrating. We deserve a president who recognizes that.