Saturday, February 28, 2009

Over 300 at Lansing, MI Tea Party!

They just kept coming. From the all over Michigan people gathered for our Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Young, old, entire families came to be joined with their fellow patriots to tell the federal government and the politicians that we are mad and we are not going to take it!


Even puppy patriots wearing a sign, "Even I have to earn my entitlements"

What began as a conversation on Twitter, for me and my fellow co-organizers, Wendy Day of For a Better Day and melanieann79, turned into 4 days of hard work of PR, networking, answering e-mails and phone calls which in turn, resulted in this amazing moment at the state Capitol.

This wasn't about Republican or Democrat, it was about fellow Michigan patriots assembled together to say, Enough!

And it wasn't just about the problem, we offered via a flier that was passed out, practical ways for people to become involved to change the out of control spending, and the encroaching socialization of our government, free markets and our personal lives

You could feel the energy in the air. The camaraderie of being gathered together with like-minded citizens caused most to linger even after our program was over, discussing politics and our new movement. And myself and my fellow co-organizers were thanked over and over again.

One of the most unforgettable moments for me was when my fellow Michiganders spontaneously gathered on the steps of the Capitol and began singing, "God Bless America" and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" What a feeling!

Media coverage

LA Times

Detroit Free Press


Lansing State Journal

Just a few of the comments I have recieved:

Thanks for organizing the Tea Party. I came with a friend and we thought you had a good turnout; there was an article about it on WorldNetDaily.

Linda, Battle Creek

Great event! Thanks for all your hard work. :-)

Gail, Armada

I literally cried today while standing with fellow Americans in front of the Capital in Lansing. The music the words spoken and the people from all walks of life who stood together for what they believe in.

My father must be spinning in his grave to see what has become of the country that he loved so much. This isn't about Republican or Democrat liberal or conservative. This is about plain old common sense and responsibility.

Frugal Granny

I thought it was a good turn out, only wonder why there wasn't TV coverage of the local instead of Altanta..I watched the 11:00 PM news.

Now where do we go from here? I'm tired as are ours of this road leading to Socialism...

Thanks again for the e-mail as we would not have known about the tea party

"My favorite sign was the young lady who asked, "I'm not old enough to vote, but I have to pay for all of this???" What they're doing in DC is plain CRUEL...we need to learn to control our government's appetite for spending for our children's sake! What will their future look like? Will their generation have it better than ours? Will they know the opportunity we have known? It's unfair. It's UN-AMERICAN."


I just would like to Thank Your for a great support for the Americans at the Capitol House today. I enjoyed myself and glad to know, I am not the only one that feels the way that I do. Are there any websites that show the pictures that took place today.


When is the next one?

Nancy, Novi

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Join Us for a Taxpayers "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" in Michigan!

CNBC’s Rick Santelli called earlier this week, backed by mortgage traders, for a “Nationwide Chicago Tea Party” to protest the ObamaAdministration’s Pork Laden Stimulus plan.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct protest by American Colonists demanding representation in the British Government.They became known as the original patriots.

As the bailouts spiral out of control, we are forced to fund failed banks. With foreclosures on the rise, we are made the collateral of out-of-control spending . And, when the bills come due, the IRS knocks on the door of self-responsibility.


Join With Thousands of Patriots Across the Country!
As We Declare Our Independence from Big Government Bailouts!

Friday, February 27th
High Noon
Michigan State Capitol
100 N. Capitol Ave, Lansing, MI

Enough with the Pork!
We bring home the bacon and we want to keep it!

Bring Your Tea Bags, Protest Signs and American Flags!
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. - Thomas Paine

Questions or to Confirm Attendance:

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Join an Anti-Stimulus Protest "Tea Party" in a City Near You!

Michelle Malkin

We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.

Michael Patrick Leahy of Top Conservatives on Twitter and his crew (including me,@apackof2 on Twitter) are spearheading “simultaneous local tea parties around the country, beginning in Chicago, and including Washington DC, Fayetteville NC, San Diego CA, Omaha Nebraska, and dozens of other locations” for next Friday.

Time: February 27, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Location: Chicago, Washington DC, other cities, Twitter
Go to for all the info.

Co-sponsors of the events with #TCOT include #DONTGO, Smart Girl Politics, Americans for Tax Reform, Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine.

For Twitters: The tea parties will be “simultweeted” with the hashtag #teaparty.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Was the Financial System Under Attack 0n 9/11/08? By Whom? Why That Date - 9/11, UPDATED

I have always said the deciding factor in Barack Obama's win was the economic crises. McCain was leading in the polls up to that point, but after Barack Obama took the lead and kept it up to the election. I believed that the economic crises was created by Paulsen & Co to assure a win for Obama. Seems I was partly correct, this appears to be bigger than Paulsen and was a "financial jihad" perpetrated on America. Read on...

Weasel Zipper

You cannot say the attack was unsuccessful - you had a regime change in the US, many lost their fortunes, banks continued to collapse and the nation might still face a depression. The big question in my opinion is WHO (not why). 9/11 was picked as the date - could it be any more obvious as to why? The likelihood that "friends and allies" from "the religion of peace" committed financial suicide bombing within US institution is high right now. (The date, think of the date)

More about the attack, Gateway Pundit, who raises more political questions regarding the generational theft spendulus:
Rep. Kanjorski Drops Bomb... US Financial System Was Attacked On September 11th

Catastrophic Financial Attack On 9-11 Caused Economic Meltdown!
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) told CSPAN: "It would have been the end of our economic and political system."

The catastrophic attack occurred on September 11, 2008?
Why is this news just now getting out?
Capitalism Gone Wild reported:

Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains what former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. During the first third of the video an enraged caller is ranting to Rep. Kanjorski about how wasteful the first $700 billion bailout was. The best part is 2 minutes and 15 seconds into the tape where Rep. Kanjorski reveals what Paulson and Bernanke told congress that shocked them into supporting the first $700 billion bailout.

On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

Rush Limbaugh commented on this bomb earlier in the week:

The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That's where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries -- Russia, China, Venezuela -- countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world?

This is all very interesting-- When President Hussein was campaigning and the "economic crisis" hit, he did not think it pressing enough to leave the campaign trail, but now we should push through a trillion dollars in legislation without oversight because a few weeks later the King deems it urgent?

Pennsylvania Democrat reveals the financial crisis was deliberate, planned, staged:

At 2 minutes, 20 seconds into this C-SPAN video clip, Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains how the Federal Reserve told Congress members about a "tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion dollars." According to Kanjorski, this electronic transfer occured over the period of an hour or two.

As reported on Eye of the Storm

LATER: Felix Salmon’s (the CNP Blogger) follow-up tries to put the story down, suggesting that this is Kanjorski’s story alone, backed only by the anonymous quotes in the New York Post article. However, note this in the Joint Economic Committee report

However, note this in the Joint Economic Committee report Financial Meltdown and Policy Response

On Thursday September 18, 2008, institutional money managers sought to redeem another $500 billion, but Secretary Paulson intervened directly with these managers to dissuade them from demanding redemptions. Nevertheless, investors still redeemed another $105 billion. If the federal government were not to act decisively to check this incipient panic, the results for the entire U.S. economy would be disastrous.

Kanjorski was/is not a member of that committee. If his account is mistaken, he’s not the only Congressman out there with bad information.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

A Chicago-Style Census

A Chicago-Style Census
Ken Blackwell
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The census is one of the most important functions performed by the federal government because the integrity our representative democracy depends on it. Because both parties understand its importance, the census has always been insulated from political corruption

That is why news of the Obama Administration’s plan to take the 2010 census away from the Commerce Department and run it out of the White House is disturbing. This action will have enormous implications on the balance of political power in the country.

When I was co-chairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, the left fought unsuccessfully to introduce “statistical sampling” into the census count. Had they gotten their way, it would have adjusted the numbers.
Statistical sampling is inherently unreliable and carries the potential for corruption and fraud. There are competing theories on which model or formula to use to adjust the numbers. If you pick the wrong formula, everyone would be deprived of having an equal vote and equal representation.

Some say that statistical sampling cannot be used in congressional districting. That is only half-true. First, the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that sampling cannot be used to reapportion seats from one state to another. However, the Court did not address whether sampling could be used to redraw district lines within each state.

Look at how Texas’s redistricting plan last decade flipped several Democrat seats to Republican seats, and it is clear how much of an impact redrawing lines can have. Second, there are ways clever lawyers can figure out how to push the envelope with sampling to manipulate reapportionment without blatantly violating the Court’s order. The Obama Administration is overflowing with clever lawyers.

Beyond that, sampling can be used to “adjust” the numbers for receiving federal money. With the trillion-dollar spending monstrosity that just squeaked through Congress, allocating those funds could easily target districts to help vulnerable Democrats, and pick off vulnerable Republicans.

Finally, some say not to be overly concerned because it’s too late to impact the 2010 census. Don’t believe that for a moment.

While it is true that some aspects have been in the planning for years, there are tremendous changes that could be done at the last minute. This is a partisan power grab, and Republicans need to stand up against it.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would most likely be supervising the census. This is the man who, for the past few years, was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). As such, his mission was to elect as many Democrats as possible to Congress.

No person in America is better-versed than Mr. Emanuel on exactly what redistricting and reapportionment plan would give Democrats a super-majority in Congress for the next decade.

Further, the White House can keep its census deliberations secret. This adds a dangerous dimension to the process. The Commerce Department is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires public hearings and input for making rules and regulations, and requires agencies to explain how they account for all the evidence presented. But the White House is not an agency, and is exempt for the APA.

If the White House takes over the census, they could incorporate suggestions from organizations such as ACORN and on how to conduct the census, and all such meetings and consultations would be secret. So much for President Obama’s promise of transparency.

It is exactly this sort of Chicago-style politics that must be kept out of the census. The administration’s power grabbing scheme will allow for the worst sort of political dealing in smoke-filled backrooms.

Republicans should immediately introduce legislation to keep the census out of the White House. Nothing should be more independent of rank partisan politics than the process that determines the integrity of our representative democracy.

President Obama got elected talking about the audacity of hope. It is truly audacious for his administration to hope that Chicago-style politics could carry the day on this important issue.


For those of us fortunate enought to know Ronald Reagan as president of the United States and for those of a younger generation who did not,his inaugural speech is a reminder of what it means to be a great American president and to be "American" And as memo to the Republican party.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Socialism & Pork

How fitting that the pork laden, largest spending bill ever to pass Congress which includes the creation of a government board to decide who gets health care and "whatever" the liberals came up with was "passed" on Friday the 13th. We don't know everything that is in the bill and either do our Reps because despite promising transparency the Obama administration didn't give our Reps a chance to read it before voting began and never posted the bill so that we, the American people could read it.

I am proud to say NO House Republican voted for the bill and only three RINOS (Republican in name only) from the Senate, Specter of PA, Collins of Maine and Snowe from Maine voted for it in the Senate.

The message from Obama Administration is to your representatives who represent YOU and to YOU directly is;
"Screw You! We won and we'll do whatever we want!"

So Happy Valentine's Day!

You may want to send you friends (espeically liberal ones, if you have any) this Valentine's Day e-card.

Just one of many to choose from, all with similiar "sentiments."

Please feel free to send one to the three RINO Senators who sold out their constituents, their party and their country for "30 pieces of silver". You can't send to any .gov e-mail addresses from the site but you can download the pictures and send yourselve. That is what I did.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Michigan Rep. Dave Camp Frozen out of Stimulus Bill Conference Committee

I just got off the phone with House Representative Dave Camp's office. Rep. Camp was supposed to be a member of the Conference Committee on the Stimulus Bill and I was calling to see if the so called "health care" provision had been removed from Bill

I was unable to get that information because Rep. Camp didn't take part in the conference. According to his office he was "frozen out" of any decision making. As reported in the Midland Daily News

I also called the other Republican House Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA) who was supposed to be on the Conference Committee also to confirm and was told this

There were two meetings called by the chairman, Senator Daniel Inouye (D- HI) The Republicans Reps were allowed to make a statement at these meetings, the bill was never discussed. Both meetings were adjourned without any input from Republican other than the statements. The Bill was debated behind closed doors by the Democrats only.

It was then announced a "compromise" was made and the bill was ready to be voted on.

The Republicans, and it is my understanding at this time, Republican Senators included had no input on the debate or the decision making of the final so called compromise!

This is outrageous! Every American who is represented by a Republican was not represented in the process. We were "frozen out"

This my friends is an example of how this administration intends to work. Chicago politics on a national scale.

And as Nancy Pelosi hissed, "WE won"

Fox News eyewitness piece to what went on at the conference

Statement of House Appropriations
Ranking Member Jerry Lewis
Stimulus Conference
February 11, 2009

As we gather for this House-Senate conference we still don’t have very much information on this package. We have no table showing the total amount of spending for the whole bill, for each department, or even for each Appropriations subcommittee, let alone the other direct spending and tax provisions.

Press reports say the number is $789.5 billion with discretionary spending between $315 billion and $320 billion. Based on the information given to my staff, we only show $311 billion. Throughout the day, subcommittees have been directed to change numbers, though ostensibly the conference notes reflect final agreements. I think the conferees need to know what we’re considering.

While Members and Senators have notes in front of them, none have been provided to our staff. At this point, we have no idea if what we’re considering is what our staff has told us was dictated to the conferees in the wee hours of this morning.

In the notes, there are a large number of items with the annotation “HWA” which usually means modified language from what was in either bill. However, not only do the notes fail to give the Members of this conference committee any indication of what the language should look like, none of our staff has even seen the language. I am told that much of this language has not even been written yet.

These are not small language issues. We are talking about literally dozens of pages of bill language creating, among other things, many new government programs.

It’s absolutely essential that we see the actual bill language before we move forward. Some of the changes now under consideration might make these programs better, some more objectionable.

Further, it appears that a number of items in the conference agreement are well outside the scope of this conference. For example, I cannot understand how this agreement could include highway funding at a level lower than the House level. This bill has been sold as an infrastructure and stimulus bill and yet highway funding has been cut. Who made this decision?

At the same time, I don’t understand how this agreement arrived at an $8 BILLION funding level for high speed rail. The Senate had $2 billion, the House had zero and yet the conference is recommending $8 billion for this new program. Could the Chairman tell me on what basis this number was determined?

It has also come to my attention that the conference agreement includes entirely new programs not in either bill – such as a new $450 million program for AMTRAK transit security. What exactly is its purpose and what are we doing with this money?

In addition, this agreement includes $1.5 billion for a new program – Discretionary Grants for a National Surface Transportation System. As much as I respect the new Secretary, I question why we would establish a new program when the existing highway program serves all 50 states and can get this money out the door immediately to the areas that can use it.

Therefore, it seems to me that there are a number of matters that we need to discuss today. While the press has reported that this is a “bless the agreement” meeting, it appears the agreement is not yet done.

So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we begin by going through the notes line by line—or perhaps run through all of the open items—so we know the disposition of each of the items before us and define the universe of open items. If we cannot come to closure on these items—complete with written language—I would ask Chairman Inouye to reconvene this meeting to resolve those items.

Lastly, I’d like to ask Chairman Obey whether it’s his intent to adhere to the Motion to Instruct that was unanimously adopted in the House yesterday. That motion requires that the conferees have access to the final text of the conference agreement 48 hours prior to the final conference report being filed in the House. I’m happy to yield to Chairman Obey for his response.

Thank you.

Jim Specht
Deputy Chief of Staff
Congressman Jerry Lewis
(202) 225-5861

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Ruin Your Health(even die!)With the Obama Stimulus Plan

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

New Penalties

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

More Scrutiny Needed

On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.)

If this article doesn't scare you half to death than your half death already.

The ideology of Tom Daschle is akin to Nazism where the government decided who was "worth" saving and who was "disposable" and the first step towards euthanasia.

According to Daschle the most disposable are the elderly. "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." Daschle's board "approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit."

Beware aging baby boomers that you don't ever see the creation of Daschle's board or that you health and life is being decided by it.

However its not to late to call/fax the conference committee members and your reps to demand that this be taken out of the "stimulus" bill.

House and Senate leaders who are part of the Committee Conference will be entering negotiations work immediately to try and iron out differences in the "stimulus" bill. For an explanation of the Committe Conference procedure see below*

The potentially heated talks could last well into next week.

But almost all Republican lawmakers -- some of whom will be part of conference committee talks -- still oppose the plan as written.

The senators who are members of the conference are Harry Reid,D-NV Max Baucus, D-Mont., Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, Thad Cochran, R-Mo., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. The House is sending Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., Charles Rangel, D-N.Y, Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and Dave Camp, R-Mich., to the meetings

Contact Information for all these Reps and all state reps can be found HERE

*Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be checked. If anything in the two versions of the bill differ, in any way (even in something as minor as punctuation), the bill must be reconciled. The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences. For example, if the House originated a bill, then sent it along to the Senate for consideration, and the Senate made changes, the bill is sent back to the House.

If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate. If changes are of a more substantial nature, however, a conference is called for.

In a conference, a number of Representative and a number of Senators meet to work out the differences in the two versions of the bill. The people in the conference committee are known as managers.

The number of managers from each house of Congress is of little concern, because the managers from each house vote separately. So, for example, a conference committee might have ten Representatives and seven Senators.

Managers are not allowed to substantially change the bill. They may add an amendment from one bill into the other, or take out an amendment added but not in the other. But they cannot add new amendments to both versions of the bill. When there is disagreement, new text, which might be a compromise between two versions, can be proposed. But the changes must be consistent with the bill itself.

Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses, that they were able to agree on the bill, able to agree only on some parts of the bill, or were unable to agree at all on the bill. If the first case, the bill is revoted upon in both houses. If the latter two cases, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.US Constitution Online

Friday, February 6, 2009

Please Contact State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to Prosecute for the Murder of Baby Shanice!


TAMPA, Fla. (AP) — Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique (ren-uh-LEEK') and the clinic owners.

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique's case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney's homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique's attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best "misguided and incomplete" in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn't provide details.

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic's actions constitute murder.

"The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage," said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. "People all over the country are just aghast."

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations. "It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics."

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York. New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him. She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women's Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later.

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication. The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn't shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

"She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything."

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

Williams' lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby's umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus (baby) would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams' baby — she named her Shanice — had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.(MURDER!)

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique's license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should (Should??!!!) prosecutors file murder charges, they'd have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

"Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual," Batey said. "And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case."

To the sane, rational person who is horrified, it is nothing but murder. However to the postmodern truth as subjective mind, its just a "procedure". This lack of conscience and morals can be seen on hideous display at Democratic Underground, an online Forum. I will warn you that many of the comments you may read will sicken, shock, and grieve you.

And that is my intend. Normally I would never include such a site in any blog but there can be no "lukewarmness" in the battle to protect society's most vulnerable, the innocent unborn.

If life is not valued here than it is not valued at any stage, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally handicapped can all fall under the category of "unwanted" and "disposable"

It's has already happened in modern society, in Nazi Germany. If you think it can't happen again, just read some of the comments!

I just got off the phone with attorney Tom Pennekamp's legal secretary (thank you!) and she told me that The Department of Health just revoked Renelique licence.

However, that's just not enough

She gave me the name of the State Attorney who has jurisdiction in the this case and I urge you to please contact the MIAMI-DADE OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY and urge State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle to prosecute for the murder of baby Shanice.

As a sidebar: Our new president, Barack Obama voted against the Illinois state legislation that required medical providers to give normal life-supporting medical care to infants born alive during an abortion

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today's world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail. Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of "the resistance." Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of "resistance," has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words "war on terror" cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism -- the ideological license to elevate one's grievances above the norms of civilized society -- was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable "tactical" considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man's second nature. "In an unfair balance, that's what people use," explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel." Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter's logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas's rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: "They should end the occupation." In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society's role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera's management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn't seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a "resistance" movement, together with honorary membership in PBS's imaginary "cycle of violence."

In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that "each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man's terrorism becomes another's resistance to oppression." He then stated -- without blushing -- that for readers of the Hebrew Bible "God-soaked violence became genetically coded." The "cycle of violence" platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror's victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas -- the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains -- to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, "Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza," to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph -- another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny's picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Mr. Pearl, a professor of computer science at UCLA, is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, founded in memory of his son to promote cross-cultural understanding.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Why the Secular Left Despise the Christian Right

Written by:
Ron Carlson
Dec 19th 2008
by Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson

Many people in the Evangelical Christian community fail to understand the true underlying cause of the Secular Left’s antagonism for the Christian Right of America. Many Christians assume it is because of our opposition to abortion, or the homosexual lifestyle, or our desire for alternative theories to evolution to be taught in the classroom; and while all of these are related to the Secular Left’s vitriol, none of them strike to the core of the matter. No, there is a much deeper and far less recognized cause for the Secular Left’s animosity for the Evangelical Christian community.

What lies at the heart of the division between the Secular Left and the Christian Right in America is a debate over the nature of truth. Evangelical Christians believe that truth is objective and universal, which means that there is absolute truth which applies to all people, in all cultures, for all times. Evangelicals recognize that this objective and absolute truth is found ultimately in the one true God of the universe and in His revelation given to us personally in Jesus Christ and in the Bible.

As a result of God having revealed absolute truth to humanity, Evangelical Christians believe that lives and societies are best governed by adhering to the principles and guidelines that God has given. After all, when an omniscient (all-knowing) and loving God personally reveals Himself and the correct path for humans to follow, it only makes sense to hold fast to His guidance. And it is the Evangelical insistence on adhering to God’s absolute truth found in His word that stokes the Secular Left’s ire.

To the contrary, the Secular Left in America is guided by a far different understanding of truth. For them, truth is no more than a social construction of reality. This means that reality has no inherent structure or meaning and there is no objective truth that humanity can discover. Instead, the Secular Left in our world has adopted a postmodern view of truth that declares that individuals and societies impose their own meaning and truth onto reality. Thus, for them, truth is relative. Truth is relative to individuals, to social groups, to cultures, and to religions. And it is this postmodern view of truth that has created the wedge of animosity between the Secular Left and the Christian Right.

As a result of their denial of objective truth and their belief that truth is relative, the Secular Left has adopted a deconstructionist approach to history and traditional worldviews, and specifically towards the absolutes of Christianity. The common claim brought by the various proponents of the Secular Left’s agenda is that “Christianity” has historically led to violence, repression, and conquest; and they will list a long series of historical abuses as evidence*.

As a result of these so-called “Christian” abuses towards non-Christian people and cultures, the Secular Left’s postmodern worldview has determined that we must now highlight and give preference to the historically marginalized and mistreated.

While highlighting marginalized people groups is a noble goal, the Secular Left does not stop here. Once again, as a result of their postmodern view of truth, the Secular Left makes an amazing leap at this point. They claim that not only should we recognize and highlight these historically marginalized people and cultures, but the leap that is made is that these marginalized people, cultures, lifestyles, and religions are actually equal to, or even preferable to the traditional Christian worldview. Thus, we see the Secular Left’s embrace of every non-Christian lifestyle, choice, and religion as normative: homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, even Muslim terrorists.

It all boils down to the nature of truth. The Christian Right has remained steadfast in our adherence to the objective truths and standards set forth in God’s word. Thus, we oppose homosexual marriage, we stand on the side of the unborn and we believe that Religions that promote the killing and suppression of those opposed to them are evil. Evangelicals are guided by God’s objective and absolute truths; and it is for this stance that the Secular Left despises us.

Christian brothers and sisters, we must be vigorously engaged in this cultural debate over the nature of truth. The future of our country and our world is at stake. Our engagement in this debate is a thoroughly Christian pursuit; in fact, God’s word admonishes us to contend for the faith, to contend for the truth (Jude 3).

At the same time, while we debate passionately, we must do so with a Christ-like “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). The way of the Master is to stand for the truth in love. While we are right to defend the truth, point out sinfulness, and label right from wrong, we must do so with an attitude of humility and love. If we do this, we will be faithful to the truth and to the example of standing for the truth left to us by our Master, Jesus Christ.

*Everyone, even the Evangelical Christians with whom they most identify these abuses, readily acknowledges the fact that historical abuses have taken place in the name of Christianity. What they fail to recognize however, is that nowhere in God’s Word (once again, the “absolutes” for Christians) do you find the sanction for these historical abuses.