Another reason to terminate federal funding to Planned Parenthood…..
Planned Parenthood Web Site Promotes Porn to Teens
By Penny Starr
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
February 26, 2008
(CNSNews.com) – Teenwire.com, the Planned Parenthood Web site that says it was created “to provide medically accurate sexual health information for teens on the Internet,” is advising teens that viewing pornography is a normal and “safer” way of enjoying sex.
Being a presidential contender has its perks, especially for Republican long shot Mike Huckabee. This week Huckabee received a letter and autographed photo of singer Peter Cetera, a solo star and an original member of the band Chicago. “He had seen me playing bass on TV…and told his manager, ‘He has some nice bass chops’ and wanted to encourage me,” Huckabee tells our Suzi Parker. “It did more than that. I was totally awestruck to get a letter from Peter Cetera.” Huckabee says that Cetera was just featured on the cover of Bass Playermagazine — Huck’s a subscriber — and Cetera even sent him a signed copy of the issue. “Aside from running for president, having one of the greatest bass players in my generation give me a compliment is like winning New Hampshire,” says Huck.
I’m not for it…It takes money out of the poor peoples pockets and puts it into the hands of the white upper class kids in the form of scholarships…Just one big huge tax on the poor…Take a look at what David Sanders had to say…
Lt. Gov. Bill Halter is taking a huge risk. Arkansas’ No. 2 Democrat is on a crusade to bring the lottery to a state that has been suspect in the past of measures to expand gambling.
His proposal, which requires a constitutional change by way of amendment, is based on the Georgia lottery, where proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets fund college scholarships for students attending accredited in-state institutions.
Last week I caught up with Halter over lunch. He was eager to chat about why Arkansas needs his proposal. But, instead of leading with the lottery – several minutes passed before he actually used the “L” word – he backed into the discussion by using one of those staggering statistics where Arkansas ranks near the bottom.
“Did you know that Arkansas is 49th in the percentage of adults with college degrees?” he asked. It’s a simple fact that he hopes might compel voters to pay attention to what he’s selling. The buildup continued as he rolled through what he called the accepted factors for economic development: Quality research and development institutions, solid infrastructure and capital.
“It’s that simple and that hard,” he said, adding that in order to compete in the global economy, Arkansas must have certain economic advantages. There is one advantage he said the state can’t afford to pass up.
“Are we going to be as competitive as we can be if that statistic (on the number of Arkansans with a college degree) doesn’t change?” he asked.
So what is his answer to more college graduates … hmmm? He kept edging closer to the word he had eschewed. “If we want to have a well-trained work force, we must spend more,” he said, catching himself, then substituting a more acceptable word for spend. “We must invest more ? so then lottery is just a funding mechanism.” There, he said it. No one was hurt.
From there on in, the discussion moved toward the typical arguments made by lottery supporters. He pointed out that 42 other states have lotteries and that Arkansans are already spending millions of dollars a year buying lottery tickets in border states, which he said leads to another question. Why should Arkansans be spending money supporting education in other states when they could be spending that money here?
It’s worth noting that Alabama, one of the states he mentioned that doesn’t have a lottery, is beating the socks off nearly every other state in terms of economic development.
And here is the key…
Does Arkansas really want or need state-sponsored gambling? Will the proposal generate the $100 million it is estimated to bring in? The most compelling argument against the proposal is one made by the New York Times, which called such lotteries a voluntary tax on the poor to support college scholarships that disproportionately go to students from families with means?
So, the candidates decided to subsist instead on a third generation copy of the Bush machine rather than the more nimble, guerilla-style, network-warfare style campaign that an open field called for. This was the result.
John McCain 1.0, broke and left for dead
Mitt Romney spending $50 million of his sons’ inheritance on a failed makeover attempt destined to fail in an era of reality TV and YouTube
Rudy Giuliani spending so much time fundraising at high dollar events that he couldn’t campaign in his natural breakout state, New Hampshire
Put all the pieces together, and you have a coherent narrative about how turning away from a grassroots, authentic, new media-ish campaign turned out to be fatal or nearly fatal for each of these campaigns. And in the redemption of John McCain and in the frustrating success of Mike Huckabee’s shoestring campaign, you will find a compelling story about the triumph of lean, word-of-mouth, buzz-driven campaigns.
McCain cannot spend without risking violating the Federal Election Commission matching grant rules (he helped create). The limit is $54 million (until the convention in September), and he’s “already spent $49 million.”
He can’t get out of the matching grant program because there isn’t an FEC quorum to vote on it.
Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
Don’t you hate it when your ideas come back to bite you? Maybe now he’s starting to understand that government regulations that stifle free speech are a bad idea. Maybe this personal lesson could turn McCain around on his McCain-Feingold gag rule, too.
If you care about life, liberty, marriage and the family, we must now go full throttle and give this everything we’ve got and spend every dime we can right now.
Go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ and give to the limit of $2,300 per individual and $4,600 per couple.Get rid of all the “mathematical impossibilities” discussion you’ve been fed by the political pundits. In fact, let me shed a little light on just whom you’ve been listening to. Given recent events, I believe a more appropriate definition of pundit is in order:
pun dit1. n. a self-declared expert who, in an effort to achieve media prominence, communicates bias, random thoughts and wild guesses with confidence and arrogance in order to convince the masses of a desired result. 2. v. to be dead wrong. 3. v. to “correct” dead wrong political opinion with more dead wrong political opinion until a certain result is reached.
For example, first they said Rudy Giuliani was the “certain” nominee. But that didn’t go so well. Then there was Fred Thompson, who was the media rock star until just about the time he entered the race. Then, with the help of many who mistakenly call themselves “conservatives” and “leaders,” Mitt Romney became the “shoe-in.” The pundits were also the ones who declared John McCain’s campaign “dead on arrival” – after all, “people were fired.” The ones who should have been fired were the pundits.
But now, people are starting to see that, and through this process, new leaders are being raised up who know that God is more powerful than the pundits and the polls.
As if opposition to the campaign-finance reform gag rule weren’t enough, I’m supporting Gov. Huckabee because I actually believe what we’ve been saying for three and a half decades: that our goal is to restore legal protection to children awaiting their birthdays, even it takes a Human Life Amendment to do it. And, Gov. Huckabee is the only candidate who shares that view. But let me give you two more reasons why you should support Mike Huckabee: Joshua and Rachel Hubbard.
These two kids were formerly frozen embryos, vulnerable to the whims of those who would experiment on them and snuff out their individual, unique, human lives.
Not only would these two kids NOT be protected under a McCain, Obama or Clinton administration, but each would force even the most pro-life taxpayer to foot the bill to kill them.
In the new television ad produced by RoeGone.org, 2-year old Joshua asks a simple yet poignant question to Sen. McCain: “What about me?”
Gary and Ronda Hubbard (who asked the “Snowflake baby” question at the Values Voter Debate) will be at the Cincinnati rally with their two adorable children to present Gov. Huckabee this award:
JOSHUA AWARD
Presented to Governor Mike Huckabee, the only candidate who stands for protecting all children,
including babies like Joshua & Rachel Hubbard,
who were once frozen embryos before being adopted.
Presented this 26th day of February, 2008, in Mason, Ohio.
Thank you, Governor Huckabee,
for your unwavering leadership for life.
And, of course, Gov. Huckabee is the only candidate who supports the Marriage Protection Amendment, too.Yeah, it’s tough. Sure it’s uphill. But I want a president who won’t give up when the going gets tough. The pundits didn’t much care for a guy named Winston Churchill either, but thank God he “never gave up.”
THIS is the moment when we must surge with every ounce of strength, money and faith that we have, keeping my home state of Ohio’s motto in mind: “With God ALL THINGS are possible.” And when Gov. Mike Huckabee wins in Ohio and Texas, the remaining states (and funds) will follow … while John McCain stands around with his hands in his pockets unable to spend his money because of the rules he helped create.
The Senate approved an amendment on Tuesday that would permanently prevent abortion funding at Indian health care service facilities. The amendment from Sen. David Vitter would codify a longstanding policy against funding of abortions with federal Indian Health Service (IHS) funds.
The language of the Vitter amendment follows the Hyde amendment, which prohibits direct funding of abortion under Medicaid except in very rare cases when the mother is a victim of rape or incest or when the pregnancy threatens her life.
The IHS bill has never carried the Hyde amendment and the bill funded abortions well after the Hyde amendment was first enacted in 1976.
The Senate voted 52 to 42 for the Vitter amendment and pro-life Republicans relied on the support of several Democrats to approve it.
“This is an important victory for the cause of life,” pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback told LifeNews.com after the vote.
“In the midst of the national debate about abortion, we have come to some fundamental agreements. We should not be using American tax dollars to fund abortion,” he added.
Almost all of the Senate Republicans other than Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter voted for the amendment.
They were joined by Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
About 1 month ago I contacted Sen Pryor through his website about why he would not sign the petition running through the Senate urging the SCOTUS to overturn the DC Gun Ban…Here is his reply…
Dear Mr. Hatcher:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court on the matter of gun ownership laws in the District of Columbia. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
During 2006, in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller 07-290, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the District’s firearm law unconstitutional, becoming the first appeals court to overturn a gun control law because of the Second Amendment. District of Columbia vs. Heller involves security guard and D.C. resident Dick Heller, whose application for a permit to keep a handgun in his home was denied by the city.
As you may know, the Supreme Court announced on November 20, 2007, that they will hear the case and determine whether the District of Columbia’s firearm law violates the Constitution. It is my understanding that the arguments will begin on March 18. The Supreme Court’s examination of the Second Amendment’s meaning is monumental in itself, as it is the first examination in over 70 years. I understand that this decision will bear historical significance and may carry broad implications for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
Please know I have been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. During my tenure in the Senate, I have supported legislation to prevent frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding gun dealers, distributors, manufacturers, and their employees. In addition, I supported legislation to prevent the seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens during times of declared emergencies.
Despite my strong support for the Second Amendment, I have not and will not sign on to amicus curiae briefs to federal courts. I believe it is the Senate’s responsibility to confirm federal judges. We ask these judges not to legislate from the bench but to use their best judgment when interpreting law. Conversely, I do not believe that senators should try to make judicial rulings from the Senate. I feel that writing judges and telling them what to do or how to rule steps across the line between our three separate but equal branches of government. If I disagree with a particular ruling, then I believe the appropriate course of action would be for Congress to act.
In short, Congress should make the laws and courts should interpret the laws, as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. In this case, as with every case, I am willing to let the courts do their work. However, if I feel that the ruling was wrong or infringes upon our Second Amendment rights, it is then that I will pursue a legislative solution. I am a strong supporter of the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms, and I believe these rights, as granted to us under the Second Amendment, are vital to our existence as a nation. From my position in the Senate, I will continue to carefully consider all legislation that might affect these rights.
Thank you again for sharing your views. I welcome your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office again in the future.
Sincerely, Mark Pryor
(Emphasis Mine)
I am willing to accept this answer…Mark Pryor continues to be a shining Pro-Life Democrat…While we have some issues that we disagree on…Protecting the Unborn is not one of these issues…It is my hope that Senators like Pryor and Bob Casey (D-Penn.) continue to shine the Pro-Life light on their party…
I’ve heard from two different sources that Tom Ridge is at or near the top of the list to be VP.
This would not come entirely out of the blue, if it’s true. McCain mentions Ridge frequently on the trail, and tactically it makes a lot of sense. Ridge was an extremely popular governor in Pennsylvania, and was widely believe to have been on the short list for the VP job in 2000. Also, Ridge is a combat veteran, like McCain. It would set up a strong contrast with a Democratic ticket that may not boast a veteran let alone a war hero.
I still think Fred Thompson makes the most sense, and regular readers will know well of this blog’s fondness for Sarah Palin, but the rumor mill says Ridge.
TOM RIDGE IS PRO-CHOICE AND AS A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE THAT WOULD MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GO AND VOTE FOR A TICKET THAT = 75% PRO-LIFE AT THE TOP AND PRO CHOICE AT THE BOTTOM….
I DON’T WANT TO DO THE THIRD PARTY THING BUT I WILL HAVE TO GIVE IT SERIOUS THOUGHT SHOULD THIS COME TO PASS…
Still, the loss in Iowa was especially tough, Josh Romney said. “It killed a lot of my dad’s momentum, to be honest. That was really damaging,” he said of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee winning Iowa after months of his father leading in the polls.
Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, brought out a surprising number of evangelical voters in Iowa. They weren’t voting against a Mormon candidate, Josh Romney said, but he did run into some “pockets of bigotry” occasionally on the campaign trail.
“When it’s religion, you definitely take it personally,” he said. “It’s highly offensive, but I think that the vast majority of people we saw were very accepting. They said, ‘Your dad shares our values and we don’t care about his religion.”‘
Only a few times, he said, did he hear voters say they couldn’t support a Mormon candidate for president. “I said, ‘That’s a very un-American thing to say.’ I mean, this is a country that based on religious freedom,” Josh Romney said.
At the beginning of the campaign, he said, there was much more attention on Mitt Romney’s faith, including a Newsweek cover story. “People, when all they knew about my dad was that he was a Mormon, they had a lot of questions about it,” Josh Romney said.
That interest had lessened as the campaign season wore on, he said, until Huckabee raised the question of whether Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers during a New York Times interview in December.
That may have hurt his father’s campaign, because “it highlighted the fact that his religious views were different” and turned attention back to Mormonism for a few weeks, he said. “It was a smart political move for Gov. Huckabee.”
Although there’s been some suggestion Mormons didn’t benefit from the scrutiny the campaign brought to their faith, Josh Romney believes the attention was helpful. “We’re a people who are proud of our beliefs and want to share our beliefs,” he said.
Josh Romney said that while he was disappointed his father’s campaign didn’t succeed, he felt some relief, too. He said he and other family members had mixed feelings about giving up their privacy and not seeing much of Mitt Romney over the next four to eight years.
