Madame Speaker, can we talk?

Last week I read of Justice Ginsburg's horrifying statement about her views on Roe v Wade. Her response is the sort of thing that "right wing conspirators" toss around about the true motives behind abortion and frequently those people get called "right wing conspirators". Is it a conspiracy if it is the truth? If this was truly her understanding of the purpose of Roe v Wade, and for years she remained silent about it, I do not believe it is too great of a stretch to suggest that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an extremely vile racist human being and guilty of many things, including deriliction of her duty as a Supreme Court Justice. [I get called racist frequently because of my opposition to the policies of the Obama administration so I do not use the word racist lightly]

From Catholic Fire

Emily Bazellon of the New York Times Magazine conducted an interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg entitled “The Place of Women on the Court” which appeared in its’ July 7, 2009 issue.

Justice Ginsburg was amazingly candid about her support of unrestricted abortion. In response to a particular question she supported even eugenics as a legitimate reason for a woman “choosing” to take the developing human life growing in her womb.

Here is an excerpt:

Q If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.(emphasis added)

Read the entire article here.This is so sick! And someone like this is on the Supreme Court? Lord, have mercy! Related Information:LifeSiteNews.Com: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Would Help Eradicate Unwanted Populations Through AbortionWorldNetDaily: Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirablesWhat Does The Prayer Really Say? Justice Ginsberg originally thought Roe v Wade was about control of undesirable populations

On the other hand these 19 members of Congress are standing up to Madame Speaker and insist that she remove abortion completely from the health care reform legislation and they deserve at least a phone call of encouragement...and yes I do know that one of them is John Murtha. But, for me, the defense of life is the top priority.

From Creative Minority Report

Dear Honorable Pelosi:As the debate on health care reform continues and legislation is produced, it is imperative that the issue of abortion not be overlooked. Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable.We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families.

Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.

Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package. Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care. The health care reform package produced by Congress will be landmark, and with legislation as important as this, abortion must be addressed clearly in the bill text.

Furthermore, funding restrictions save lives by reducing the number of abortions. The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading pro-choice research organization noted "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."

Thank you for taking the time to consider our request. By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.

Respectfully yours,

Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).

An Email from the Catholic League

I am stunned and appalled...no, nevermind, not really.


CATHOLIC DEMOCRATS CHIDE POPE

On January 29, nearly 50 Catholic Democratic congressmen sent a letter to Pope Benedict XVI stating their concerns over Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments questioning the historical record on the Holocaust. The bishop belongs to the St. Pius X Society, a group which recently had its excommunication lifted by the pope. The congressmen implored the pope to denounce the bishop’s views.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to this issue today:

“The congressmen’s letter to the pope smacks of posturing and hypocrisy, and is factually wrong. They begin by saying ‘we are writing to express our deep concerns with your decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson to communion with the Catholic Church….’ The fact is that the pope did not reinstate the bishop to communion with the Church—he merely lifted the excommunication of the group to which he belongs. In order for the group to be fully reinstated, it would have to express its fidelity to the teachings of the Church, as well as the norms of Vatican II. In other words, the letter is based on a false predicate.

“Facts aside, this kind of posturing is a disgrace: for American congressmen to lecture the pope about an event in which he was personally victimized, and about which he has long condemned, is nothing short of arrogant.

“The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. They beg the pope to ‘publicly state your unequivocal position on this matter so that it is clear where the Church stands….’ How ironic that most of these very same Catholics fail to speak with clarity about what the Church teaches on abortion. Of the 47 signatories, the majority have a 100 percent NARAL score (meaning they vote with the radical pro-abortion group on every issue). The leader of this group, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, never agrees with the Catholic Church on abortion—her NARAL score is 100 percent.

“One more thing: they addressed the pope not as a head of state but as a ‘spiritual leader.’ Didn’t they ever hear of respecting separation of church and state?”

I miss Reagan, don't you?

I miss Reagan
Please watch this amazing speech by Ronald Reagan, on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1967...his words ring so true, especially when he speaks of the power of the government treatment of America's farmers. Remember the bailout? It gives the secretary of the treasury the exact same powers over America's banks.

And then this quote, even though he was speaking of our Cold War enemies, it still rings true today.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum.

And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.

If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance.

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."



++++++++++++++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++

Save our nation!

This is about 8 minutes long, but please watch it. It is a disturbing glimpse into our future under President Obama(gag)