Say Anything Blog

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

DENVER—Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he was attempting to take pictures of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker’s neck, then twisted the producers arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

It was two hours later when Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, “You’re lucky I didn’t knock the f..k out of you.” Eslocker was released late today after posting $500 bond.

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

Our sense of Free Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Worship in the public square is all but dead, trampled on by politicians and the cops.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1

DENVER – The “faith community” has taken on a new dimension at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, with advocates saying poverty has replaced same-sex marriage as an issue for Christians.

ABSOLUTE, UTTER NONSENSE!

“an array of theologies assembled in Denver for the DNC reaches far, according to a report in the Denver Post. Attending a convention-opening interfaith gathering were the likes of Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America, Rabbi Tzvi Weinreb of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and Sister Helen Prejean.

Jim Wallis, an evangelical political activist who wrote “God’s Politics” and founded the “progressive” magazine and community Sojourners, said the country is undergoing a change, and “poverty has replaced gay marriage as a galvanizing issue for Christians.”

Leaders also cited climate change, Darfur and Iraq as “religious” issues.

Becky Vanderslice organized a group of Denver clergy to advocate for the “common values” of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and said differences don’t “represent the values held … poverty, immigration reform, human rights, economic issues.”

A bunch of liberal religious types gather together to decide, without any supporting data nor authority within the community of faith that, Christians now find the liberal political agenda of greater importance to people of faith than abortion, homosexual marriage, family values or whatever else has always been their top spiritual priorites. What enormous hubris, it is vanity beyond belief that they believe they speak for the Christian Church. Further, there are no common values between Christianity and Islam, they are as foreign to one another as if they came from different planets.

Yes, there are liberals within the various Christian denominations that are pushing a secular, global minded, green and socialist agenda and they have their followers; but they hardly speak for a very large number of Christians, nor do they represent true Christianity which is not involved in the affairs of this world, but rather primarily in spreading the Gospel message of Jesus Christ throughout the earth. If these liberal minded folk are not advancing that Gospel and submission to Christ, they are Christian in name only, attaching Christ’s Name to their personal, liberal political agenda without any biblical warrant.

The good news is, their nonsense will not impact how Christians, especially evangelicals vote.

What an apt metaphor, while the Democrats meet to battle over which party gets to run the country and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech is confined to a wire fence, a cage; 700 feet away from the convention center, where it cannot contaminate the politcians.

When politicians fear free speech and are willing and able to effectively silence their detractors, the Bill of Rights is dead and should be given a decent funeral.

So long old friend, it was nice having you around!

DENVER (AP) - A small group of protesters has marched to the demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention, complaining they are being treated like political prisoners.
A contingent from the protest group Recreate 68 Alliance went to the fenced-off zone on Monday, even though they had vowed earlier they would never return.

Protesters derisively call the 47,000-square foot zone the “Freedom Cage.” It’s separated from the parking lot around the convention hall by metal fences atop concrete barriers.

It’s about 700 feet from the Pepsi Center, where the delegates will gather starting Monday night.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PEFBG0&show_article=1

Obama’s Christian Confession

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” John Jay the first Supreme Court Justice

For those of you that disagree with this statement by our First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1789-1795; then this article will be of absolutely no interest to you at all. It will be a waste of your time.

For those that like John Jay prefer real Christians as our rulers, then it might interest you to know something about Barak H. Obama’s public confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Was it a mere intellectual profession in the historical Jesus, or a true conversion to Jesus as Savior and Lord.

Obama’s mother said she was a Christian at one time, but according to Obama and his sister, she became an agnostic that was more secular in her thinking and like Oprah Winfrey, a high profile Obama supporter, she believed that all religions were but different paths to the same God and eternal life in Heaven. I have often thought of the Winfrey Doctrine as a Chinese Menu Religion, if you don’t like what you see in Column-A, then go to Column-B and through the alphabet until you find a religion that makes you feel good and it doesn’t matter, because they all lead to God.

Regarding his purported faith in Christ as Savior, after the death of his agnostic, Christ rejecting, all-religions are the same beliefs mother, Obama said he believes that it doesn’t matter that his mother is in Heaven. Jesus said faith in Him alone was the only way unto Salvation, but Obama feels it is okay to reject what Jesus said and instead essentially embrace what his mother and Oprah believe; that is, that everyone gets to Heaven no matter what they believe.

How can any Christian hold two such contradictory beliefs at the same time and be faithful to either?

Obama’s father was a Muslim turned atheist, a grandfather that helped raise him was an animist (all things are living souls). Obama attended a Catholic School in Indonesia, but nonetheless was sufficiently indoctrinated in Islam that he can recite and speaks about the beauty of the Islamic Morning and Evening Prayers and he feels Islam and Christianity are compatible and can live side by side.

He still speaks of his faith still as a journey, which by his many words and the track record of his parents and close family could just as easily lead him to an agnosticism or Universalist approach to faith while in office.  He speaks of admiring the Deists among our Founding Fathers, while he does not seem to find any Christians among them or former presidents worthy of his admiration and he says he finds no answers in the Bible to many of the great questions of life. Obama is an adherent to the Black Liberation Theology, a social-political activist brand of humanistic faith, that rejects the historical Jesus for a new African Jesus and sees white people, as do Muslims, as the devil.

While no one can judge the heart of another man, and we Christians are commanded not to judge the eternal fate of anyone; it seems by all the above and much more about Obama’s Christian Faith and his support for homosexual marriage and abortion on demand that, there is good reason to doubt the sincerity of his professed faith and it seems to me that Christian Voters may want to meditate on that very distinct possibility, before they cast their vote for a candidate that appears not to have any real core Christian values to guide him as POTUS.

A note on Biden’s Roman Catholic Faith, he is a menu type Catholic, he directly opposes the Church’s teaching on Abortion and Homosexuality, which means he too seems to have no core Christian values to guide him in a crisis.

This is not meant to JUDGE either man, but to encourage Christians to examine their alleged faith of both men much more closely before voting.

Democrat sues Sen. Obama over ‘fraudulent candidacy’

While we have all had questions about Obama’s citizenship, it is interesting that a Democrat has collected the information and is suing to have Obama declared ineligible to run for POTUS.

A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat has sued Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be president of the United States.

Philip J. Berg, a former member of Pennsylvania’s Democratic State Committee and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, filed the lawsuit this week in U.S District Court, asking the court to declare Obama ineligible for the presidency and to prevent him from running for the position.

A separate motion was also filed seeking a temporary restraining order on Obama’s presidential campaign until Obama’s eligibility can be verified.

The lawsuit claims Barack Obama’s eligibility is questionable on several grounds, including the allegation that he was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship, that his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery, that he was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship.

In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen, lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child, may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

When I suggested this a few weeks ago, people I respect like Bat One said SCOTUS would never accept such a case, I think that was his position. But, it would be fascinating to watch this unfold and witness whether or not the liberal American people care if our President is an American Citizen.

For example, the suit alleges that while records exist of a “registry of birth” for Obama in Hawaii (filed four days after his claimed birthday), no records exist of his mother’s stay in any Hawaii hospital, suggesting she may have given birth elsewhere and filed the registration shortly thereafter on American soil.

“Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya,” the suit states. “Reports reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth.”

The suit further claims that the Republicans “sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen.”

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama’s mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship

Will this have any legs? What would happen if Obama even “appears,” by credible evidence to not be a natural born citizen?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

Christian Theology Students Forced off Campus by Mob of Islamic Hard-liners

Tell Obama to go and negotiate with these peace loving Muslims, in a secualr, allegedly religiously tolerant nation, where even their President fears to upset the Muslim terorists.

JAKARTA, Indonesia —  Hundreds of Christian theology students have been living in tents since a mob of angry Muslim neighbors stormed their campus last month wielding bamboo spears and hurling Molotov cocktails.

The incident comes amid growing concern that Indonesia’s tradition of religious tolerance is under threat from Islamic hard-liners.

In talks since the attack, the Arastamar Evangelical School of Theology has reluctantly agreed to shut its 20-year-old campus in east Jakarta, accepting an offer this week to move to a small office building on the other side of the Indonesian capital.

“Why should we be forced from our house while our attackers can walk freely?” asked the Rev. Matheus Mangentang, chairman of the 1,400-student school.

The government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which relies on the support of Islamic parties in Parliament, is struggling to balance deep Islamic traditions and a secular constitution. With elections coming next April, the government seems unwilling to defend religious minorities, lest it be portrayed as anti-Islamic in what is the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country.

Islam is not now, it never has been and never will be tolerant of infidels, reserving their most virulent hatred for Jews and running a close second are Christians. The only thing they understand is force, not that even force will stop their attacks on all infidels, just that it will reduce the frequency and severity of such attacks. There is NO meaningful negotiations nor any peaceful coexistence with Islam!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408644,00.html

Feds protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt

More, it makes it possible for Christians and other people of conscience in the medical profession to refuse to engage in practices or procedures that violate their spiritual-moral beliefs. This is a victory for the Constitution.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released information yesterday about a proposed new rule that would strengthen protection for medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions for moral or religious reasons.

“Health care professionals should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a conference call with reporters.

The Associated Press quoted Leavitt saying, “Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree.”

The rule, if confirmed, would apply to the nation’s several hundred thousand medical institutions that receive federal funding. It would compel them to certify in writing their compliance with three currently existing federal laws that allow health professionals to exempt themselves from performing procedures contrary to their conscience.

Leavitt told reporters the new rule would severely penalize violating institutions, including the loss of government funding, and make it easier for health care professionals who feel they’ve faced retaliation for their decisions of conscience to file a complaint.

The wording of the 42-page proposed rule also makes it clear that the right of conscience does not extend to doctors only but to any who “assist in the performance” of abortions. The rule specifically cites the example of nurses and workers who clean the equipment used in abortion and sterilization procedures.

Unfortunately, the medical profession is trying to force doctors and other allied health care professionals to either perform morally objectionable procedures of lose their professional credentials.

“There appears to be an attitude toward the health care professions that health care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination,” the rule states. “In some instances the standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional, forcing health care professionals to choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience.”

Leavitt explained on his blog recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, could be interpreted to require a doctor to perform abortions to be considered competent. If a doctor won’t, he or she can’t practice medicine.

“Freedom of expression and action are unfit barter for admission to medical employment or training,” Leavitt told reporters.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73125

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit against the City of Elmira, N.Y., after police threatened to arrest three Christians if they did not remove a shirt and stop sharing biblical messages during a “gay” pride event at a public park.

John Barnes wore a shirt with the message “Liberated from sin by the blood of Jesus” to the Southern Tier Pride 2008 at Wisner Park – a June 14 event promoted as a celebration of homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles.

According to the complaint filed in a U.S. district court, Elmira police Capt. Michael Marrone ordered Barnes to remove his shirt to prevent a “negative atmosphere” at the event and arouse discomfort in other attendees.

Barnes obeyed the officer and took off his shirt so he could remain at the park without facing arrest.

Another Christian, Julian Raven, carried a Christian newsletter to the event called the Elmira Protestor. Marrone threatened to arrest Raven if he distributed the letter, saying it contained obscene or illegal material, according to the complaint. Raven complied with the order.

Capt. James Wandell and Sgt. Sharon Moyer threatened a third Christian, James DeFerio, with arrest for holding a sign on a public sidewalk adjacent to the park. The sign read: “Thousands of ex-homosexuals have experienced the life-changing love of Jesus Christ” and listed websites for more information about ministry to ex-“gays.”

Mayor John Tonello spoke about democracy at the ‘gay’ pride event, while his Brown Shirt thugs suppressed Free Speech and Freedom of Religion outside the event.

This is something even some so-called conservatives here at SAB do not understand or just don’t care anything about:

“Exercising your First Amendment rights is not a crime. Threatening to arrest Christians simply because they have opposing views and choose to exercise their free speech rights at a public place is unconstitutional.”

Yes, in the Public Square it is unlawful, unConstitutional to infringe upon Free Speech and Freedom of Religion which are supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Quite frankly, even demanding that Code Pink or others remove political images on their clothing or banners in the Senate or House Galleries is offensive to the very concept of free political speech.

Let’s be honest, in this case it is the police using the color of authority to suppress any speech which does not support the homosexual agenda. Police Departments are increasingly becoming the Storm Troopers for the Homosexual Activists and Liberals, no better than the Gestapo in infringing upon Free Speech and mostly any public Christian speech.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73042

Pelosi suggests Chet Edwards for VP

By Jason Embry | Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 11:27 AM

A video that appeared on the Web this morning has a brief interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about who would be a good vice presidential candidate.

“Anyone that Barack Obama wants is my choice for vice president,” Pelosi told the interviewer, who appeared to be from Newsweek. “But I do think in the list of considerations there should be somebody from the House of Representatives and Chet Edwards is a person that many of us think would be a good person to be in the mix.”

She then went on to name a few of the usually mentioned candidates from the Senate.

Edwards, a Texas Democrat whose home is in Waco, is a very interesting idea. He chairs the subcommittee that doles out money for veterans’ facilities and could brag of last year’s record increase in funding. He also has strong defense credentials — he is much loved at Fort Hood, the world’s largest military installation, which he used to represent. There is a street there named after him. He endorsed Obama before the Texas primary.

On the flip side, he supported the war in Iraq and he’s somewhat unknown nationally, even though he’s been in the U.S. House since 1991 and was a state senator before that.

And here’s where it gets really interesting: He is President Bush’s local congressman. Would that help him or hurt him? It could show his appeal to Republicans, or people might want nothing to do with the president.

Sen. Barack Obama has insisted he did not back a state bill protecting babies born alive from failed abortions because it would undermine Roe vs. Wade, but a newly unearthed transcript of his arguments from the floor of the Illinois Senate indicate otherwise.

Arguing against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, after even Planned Parenthood had dropped its opposition, Obama expressed concern that the bill might burden abortionists, reports blogger Erick Erickson on RedState.com.

Erikson, noting Obama was the only lawmaker to speak out against the protective measure, summarized the senator’s concern this way: “Let’s trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.”

According to the transcript, Obama said:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

The bill might burden abortionists? Too damn bad!

If the human being is outside the womb and “moving,” it is a person deserving of their constitutional rights to life and liberty; and the desires of the murderous abortionists and the mother have nothing to do with the rights of this child too live. This is no grey area open to debate, this is now without any doubt a human being and no physician has the right to kill this human being or allow them to die through neglect. This is murder!

Since the child is outside the womb, no other term can apply but INFANTICIDE, wholesale murder of socially undesireable human beings.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040

There is no excuse for rape, it is not about sex, but power, it is likewise inexcusable for military commanders not to take reports of rape, sexual abuse or harrassment seriously. However, it was predicted many decades ago that the mixing of male and female soldiers in the military would inevitably raise sexual tensions and result in a negative impact on military discipline and unit cohesion in combat units.

For the more than 200,000 women serving on active duty in the U.S. military, sexual assault and harassment are issues not to be ignored – and now that the armed forces are taking steps to correct the problem, some wonder if it is doing enough.

Carolyn Schapper

In the fiscal year ‘07, ending Oct. 1, military members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan reported 131 cases of rape and assault. The Department of Defense recorded 2,688 cases of sexual assault last year; 60 percent were allegations of rape.

Some women claim the military does not respond adequately to allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Carolyn Schapper, 35, told the Associated Press an Army National Guard soldier repeatedly stormed into her room while she was dressing in Iraq. She began changing in her shower stall to ensure she had privacy. Schapper said she wouldn’t think of reporting the incident, because she believed administrative action would be taken against her instead of the other soldier.

Maria Lauterbach

Missing pregnant Marine Maria Lauterbach’s body was found burned in a shallow fire pit located in Cpl.Cesar Armando Lauren’s backyard earlier this year. She had accused Lauren of sexually assaulting her and planned to testify against him before she vanished.

After the hearing was dismissed, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said there is an “epidemic of assault and rape against women in our military.” “Women serving in the military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” she said.

According to a Government Accountability Office report released July 31, incidents of rape and sexual assault in the military are under-reported by nearly half. Many soldiers fail to report assaults because they worry “that nothing will be done; fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule; and concern that peers would gossip.”

Some victims argue that the military chain of command would punish or move them if they complained, rather than discipline the person responsible for the assault.

> Most soldiers are very young men with hormones raging, expressing itself in macho self-images, bravado, and an exceptionally strong interest in the opposite gender, the strongest of their lives.
> When in combat, shortly before or after, there is a sense of the shortness of life and a desire to make hay while the sun shines. Thus, throughout military history the high increases in pregnancies among married soldiers, venereal diseases and other sexually related problems during war. Liberals demand self-control, something totally foreign to a man with an erection and/or in close proximity to someone of the opposite gender.
> Many, if not most rapes are actually the result of passions gone to far, especially when drinking is involved and a female having regrets about not making her “no’ clear enough, to protect themselves find it easier to charge rape than take responsibility for their role in the sexual intercourse.

My point is this; I think it is unnatural in a combat setting, with long times away from a place where sexual needs can find a safe outlet, to have hormone raging young men and women in close proximity to each other for long periods of time. The nation understood this when mixing of men and women in combat was first proposed, but more liberal minded people prevailed and now we have a situation where normal, horny young men are being viewed as rapists and uncontrolled animals, while the all the females are of course innocent victims, all the result of social experimentation and political meddling in the military, all in the damnable name of political correctness.

Lastly, to all the morons that may comment, this is not an attack on women and as earlier expressed, it is not an excuse for the sexual misconduct of rapists, sexual abusers or the sexual harassment of women. It is my view that such close relationships in combat units will always breed such sexual tensions and even misconduct, unless we castrate all men in the military; or, go back to the successful no women in combat policies of the past.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72922

Well I am stunned, shocked and amazed; but the drive-by main stream media is biased for Obama and against McCain, who would have ever expected they are liberal and want a liberal black Messiah for President:

Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.

These are the key findings of the Media Research Center’s exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite, every mention — from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks’ coverage — particularly prior to the formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign — bordered on giddy celebration of a political “rock star” rather than objective newsgathering.

Key Findings:

# The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.

# NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).

# The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.

# The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a “liberal” 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a “rock star,” “rising star” or “superstar” during the same period.

What bothers me is not that the MSM is 95%+ extremely liberal, we all know that to be the truth; but, because they are dishonest about their bias and unwilling to admit it when the statistics testify against them.

Bush has had to fight against Islamic Terrorism for all of his administration and at the same time a Democrat Party that is heavily invested in the defeat of America in Iraq and elsewhere; but, he has also has had to fight a worse enemy, the MSM that is so liberal they have spoken hourly against the war in Iraq, given out sensitive military and intelligence information, all to defeat Bush, the Republican Party and if need be America.

Bastards!

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obamaExecSum.asp

It both amuses me and angers me that Liberals, when one of their candidates is caught lying, is in the midst of a scandal or when an issue the candidate supports is not liked by the American public, the Left has a stroke trying to dig themselves out of a hole and they only dig it deeper. Just listen to Bob Beckel and Alan Comes defending Obama, they accuse the Republican Party of saying that Obama is in favor of infanticide, which they have not said, was not even mentioned in this interview at all; and when that isn’t outrageous enough to obscure the issue, they say the Republicans call Obama a Muslim. They will invent any lying charge possible, they will obfuscate and misdirect at all costs rather than ever admit to the facts.

Barry wants to kill babies.

How do I know that? Because Barry said that he supports Roe Vs Wade.

Seriously, if I take him at his word then he supports Roe vs Wade, where babies in late term are killed in the womb. However, if the babies make it out of the birth canal, Barry is filled with sudden “hope and compassioniness” that he cares about the babies. Of course, not enough to actually vote for the bill that would give the babies born during “botched abortions” medical care because the language doesn’t mesh with the federal coding to protect Roe vs Wade. Except, it did match the language from the Federal bill, word for word.

Why does this concern the Bob Beckels of the world? What do they really care? They’ve been killing babies since ‘73. Sure, they’ll call it a clump of cells so as not to humanize it but there is no denying that late term abortions are killing babies.

That’s the left’s problem. The same people that curse our soldiers by calling them “baby killers” hate to be confronted with the fact they they actually endorse killing babies. That’s a hard pill to swallow. It’s even harder when you have to feed it to “Mr Hope and Change” himself. After all, at Saddleback he was sagely when he said that “America’s greatest moral failure was not doing for the least of these.” Well, babies, unborn or not, are pretty much in the “least of these” category.

When does life begin?

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

http://www.fileitunder.com/

A state Supreme Court today ruled that constitutional freedom of religion does not permit doctors to refuse services to homosexual clients, even when those services would violate doctors’ moral and religious convictions.

In a unanimous decision, the California State Supreme Court ruled against two Christian doctors at a San Diego-area fertility clinic who refused to provide a medical procedure for artificial insemination to a lesbian couple.

According to court documents, the doctors claimed their religious convictions prohibited them from using intrauterine insemination (IUI) on any unmarried woman, regardless of sexual orientation.

The court, however, agreed with the lesbian couple that Dr. Douglas Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody had refused the treatment because of the lesbian couple’s homosexuality and ruled that in doing so, the doctors violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Justice Kennard

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, stated, “This case was never about discrimination against patients on the basis of sexual choices; it was about discrimination against healthcare professionals on the basis of their sincerely held ethical standards.”

“Physicians of course must treat all patients with compassion and respect, regardless of the belief systems or sexual norms of the patients,” Stevens said. “But tolerance is a two-way street: we must also respect the right of healthcare professionals to make decisions based on ethical standards. ... Even the American Medical Association officially affirms that ‘neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.’”

The Pacific Justice Institute, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the doctors, said in a statement, “Today, California’s highest court unanimously ruled that the state’s civil rights laws offer virtually no exceptions for people of faith.”

First, any private medical corporation should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Next, these lesbians were not denied life-threatening care, but an elective procedure that could have been performed elsewhere.

> Unless it is a life threatening situation, wherein personal beliefs or ethics must take a backseat to saving a life; then Christians, Muslims, or others must have the right to refuse to do something that conflicts with their moral-spiritual beliefs.

> If these medical people are employees they must be required to agree in writing to violate their private beliefs before being hired or given clear options.

This is part and parcel of the Homosexual Community’s ongoing, long-term and relentless attacks on people of faith, demanding that their rights as gays are greater than the rights of all others.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72766

‘Unprecedented partnership’ nets new 1sts for LGBT community

The release of the proposed platform for the Democratic Party’s national convention has leaders of homosexual advocacy groups thanking presidential candidate Barack Obama for helping create a platform that aligns with “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” (or LGBT) activists’ vision of American values.

Sorry Ms Rea Carey - You Look Like a Guy

For example, in the opening paragraph of a section called “A More Perfect Union”, the platform states: “Democrats will fight to end discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and disability in every corner of our country, because that’s the America we believe in” (emphasis added).

Later in the same section the platform states, somewhat ambiguously, “We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections.”

The application of that sentence specifically to homosexual unions is made clear, however, by the two sentences that immediately follow it:

“We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.”

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, allows states where homosexual marriage is not recognized to disregard those unions performed in other states that do perform ‘gay’ marriage. It also forbids the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriages, even if considered so by an individual state.

“The 2008 Platform reiterates and strengthens past support for legislation that would protect our community, including calls for the passage of hate crimes and comprehensive employment discrimination legislation, and the repeal of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in our nation’s military,” Solmonese said in a released statement.

> This is truly a Pro-Homosexual-Democrat Party Platform written by Homosexual Activists.
> If the Democrats follow this platform in 2008, it will end the Defense of Marriage Act which means that, even those states with Constitutional mandated marriages only between a man and woman will be forced to in every legal sense recognize gay marriages from other states.
> They will attempt to strengthen gay hate crimes laws that will in effect outlaw the Bible, preaching against homosexuality or any public expression that a person believes homosexuality to be a sin.
> We will become the “Anti-Christ - Homosexual States of America.

But, like Whistler says - ‘who cares?’

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72574