I just received my pre-ordered copy of the documentary Blood Money. This is a movie that people really need to see because it exposes the abortion industry for what it really is; an industry driven by financial greed, not compassion for women. Some of the revelations in this movie will probably shock you and I know it deeply saddend me. I will be setting up a meeting with the pastor at my church to see if we can have a showing of this movie at the parish hall. DVD's are now available at the website Blood Money Film.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
GRTL Uses Poor Analogy, But Handel is Still Not Worthy of Pro-Life Endorsement
Handel is firing back at Georgia Right to Life executives who have refused to endorse her because of some of her views on life issues. In a news story in Politico this week, GRTL PAC Executive Director Melanie Crozier questioned Palin’s endorsement of Handel and said that “[Palin] has a son with Down’s Syndrome, and under Karen Handel’s laws, Handel would have felt like it was ok to go in and abort that child.”
I feel like this was a poor analogy and wording by Melanie Crozier, but before everyone follows Handel's screams for Crozier's ouster, let's look at exactly what she said and consider the context in which she spoke. Melanie first simply pointed out a fact that Sarah Palin's son has Down's Syndrome. I see nothing wrong with that. Then she mention's "Karen Handel's laws." What is she talking about here? Well, in a life site news article written on June 3rd, Dan Becker, the Georgia Right to Life president, tells LifeNews.com, "Handel proclaims herself pro-life; however, she does not meet the 21st century demands of being pro-life. For instance, Handel believes that a child may be aborted based on its manner of conception. When I asked her directly her thoughts on the value of embryos, she answered that she does not believe that an embryonic human is a child," Becker said.
Karen Handel is supportive of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. On the other hand, her competitor for Georgia governor makes the only exception in the case that the mother's life is in danger. Although Sarah Palin's pregnancy does not fit any of those exceptions, Handel's interpretation of the value of life is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. In cases of rape and incest, the health of the mother may not be in danger. What justification is there then for killing the baby? When people allow acceptions based on the circumstances it is not a far stretch to imagine that they soon too would accept killing babies that would also appear to be born under other difficult circumstances. Although I follow Melanie Crozier's logic, and agree with it, I think she definitely misspoke when trying to explain her position.
Full disclosure, I am supporting Nathan Deal in the GA republican race for governor because I do not trust Handel and her positions on the most important social issues: the protection of life and family. In addition to her views on abortion in cases of rape and incest, I have serious concerns about her apparent belief that a human embryo is not a child. I have a serious problem with her funding of programs through Planned Parenthood. I have serious questions about her dedication and resolve to protect the institution of marriage considering her support of gay group Log Cabin Republicans. I must note that Handel has since denied the claim about supporting Log Cabin Republicans, she has tried to explain her funding of Planned Parenthood (rather unsuccessfully I might add), and she continues to say she is "staunchly and unequivocally" pro-life.
The question is what and who do you trust. Honestly, I'm not sure I fully trust any politician, but I certainly don't trust Handel. She has run a campaign primarily based on attacks some of which I feel were honestly uncalled for and mean spirited. Her answers to direct questions on social issues reflect at best a lack of interest or knowledge, and at worst poor moral ideals. She knows that social issues are very important to a large percentage of social conservative republicans like myself, and I believe that she knows she must get the social conservative vote to win the nomination. Personally, I don't buy what she is trying to sell. While I might agree with her that Crozier's analogy was poor, I do not agree with her campaign to force Crozier and Becker to resign from GRTL. Based on comments I've read from Handel, she seems to be very bitter and unpleasant. Although a good personality isn't completely necessary in running a state, I think it does call into question her character. This also brings into question her judgement and how she would work to resolve problems. It is for these reasons that I endorse Nathan Deal for Governor of Georgia. Did you hear that AJC?
I feel like this was a poor analogy and wording by Melanie Crozier, but before everyone follows Handel's screams for Crozier's ouster, let's look at exactly what she said and consider the context in which she spoke. Melanie first simply pointed out a fact that Sarah Palin's son has Down's Syndrome. I see nothing wrong with that. Then she mention's "Karen Handel's laws." What is she talking about here? Well, in a life site news article written on June 3rd, Dan Becker, the Georgia Right to Life president, tells LifeNews.com, "Handel proclaims herself pro-life; however, she does not meet the 21st century demands of being pro-life. For instance, Handel believes that a child may be aborted based on its manner of conception. When I asked her directly her thoughts on the value of embryos, she answered that she does not believe that an embryonic human is a child," Becker said.
Karen Handel is supportive of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. On the other hand, her competitor for Georgia governor makes the only exception in the case that the mother's life is in danger. Although Sarah Palin's pregnancy does not fit any of those exceptions, Handel's interpretation of the value of life is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. In cases of rape and incest, the health of the mother may not be in danger. What justification is there then for killing the baby? When people allow acceptions based on the circumstances it is not a far stretch to imagine that they soon too would accept killing babies that would also appear to be born under other difficult circumstances. Although I follow Melanie Crozier's logic, and agree with it, I think she definitely misspoke when trying to explain her position.
Full disclosure, I am supporting Nathan Deal in the GA republican race for governor because I do not trust Handel and her positions on the most important social issues: the protection of life and family. In addition to her views on abortion in cases of rape and incest, I have serious concerns about her apparent belief that a human embryo is not a child. I have a serious problem with her funding of programs through Planned Parenthood. I have serious questions about her dedication and resolve to protect the institution of marriage considering her support of gay group Log Cabin Republicans. I must note that Handel has since denied the claim about supporting Log Cabin Republicans, she has tried to explain her funding of Planned Parenthood (rather unsuccessfully I might add), and she continues to say she is "staunchly and unequivocally" pro-life.
The question is what and who do you trust. Honestly, I'm not sure I fully trust any politician, but I certainly don't trust Handel. She has run a campaign primarily based on attacks some of which I feel were honestly uncalled for and mean spirited. Her answers to direct questions on social issues reflect at best a lack of interest or knowledge, and at worst poor moral ideals. She knows that social issues are very important to a large percentage of social conservative republicans like myself, and I believe that she knows she must get the social conservative vote to win the nomination. Personally, I don't buy what she is trying to sell. While I might agree with her that Crozier's analogy was poor, I do not agree with her campaign to force Crozier and Becker to resign from GRTL. Based on comments I've read from Handel, she seems to be very bitter and unpleasant. Although a good personality isn't completely necessary in running a state, I think it does call into question her character. This also brings into question her judgement and how she would work to resolve problems. It is for these reasons that I endorse Nathan Deal for Governor of Georgia. Did you hear that AJC?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Kegan's "Answer" on Natural Law is VERY Troubling
This video alone should be enough for you to urge your elected representative to vote NO on Kegan for Supreme Court Justice. Her response to whether people have God given, unalienable rights is very,very troubling. Kegan is also extreme in her views on life issues. She supports partial birth abortion even at it's latest stages, assisted suicide, and may even support human cloning. Kegan is a radical liberal. Voting for her confirmation is this week. Make sure your voice of opposition to Kegan is heard before the vote.
If you find this video as troubling as I do, please sign the petition to oppose Elena Kegan HERE.
If you find this video as troubling as I do, please sign the petition to oppose Elena Kegan HERE.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
GA Senator Saxby Chambliss Will Vote NO on Elena Kegan's Supreme Court Nomination
Good News from GA! Below is an email I received this morning from Senator Saxby Chambliss in response to my letter voicing my concerns about Elena Kagan.
--
Dear Mr. Duquaine:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan. It is good to hear from you.
On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Hagan currently serves as the Solicitor General of the United States, and was confirmed by the Senate 61-31 on March 19, 2009.
I have consistently stated that Supreme Court nominees must not engage in legislating from the bench, but instead interpret the laws as written. Additionally, any judge who sits on the nation's highest court must understand that the correct venue for making policy is the legislative branch. After reviewing Solicitor General Kagan's record, I remain unconvinced that she will show this requisite judicial restraint
Furthermore, Ms. Kagan once criticized the Supreme Court confirmation process as lacking "seriousness and substance," but when faced with the opportunity to clarify many of her more troubling positions during days of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was evasive and unhelpful. Her inadequate answers leave me with significant concerns on several issues, including discriminatory actions against military recruiters, in clear violation of federal law, while she was dean of Harvard Law School in protest of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy; her hostility toward the Second Amendment while employed by the judicial and executive branches; and her support for the egregious practice of partial-birth abortion. Therefore, I will vote against her nomination to the Supreme Court.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at:www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
--
Dear Mr. Duquaine:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Elena Kagan. It is good to hear from you.
On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Hagan currently serves as the Solicitor General of the United States, and was confirmed by the Senate 61-31 on March 19, 2009.
I have consistently stated that Supreme Court nominees must not engage in legislating from the bench, but instead interpret the laws as written. Additionally, any judge who sits on the nation's highest court must understand that the correct venue for making policy is the legislative branch. After reviewing Solicitor General Kagan's record, I remain unconvinced that she will show this requisite judicial restraint
Furthermore, Ms. Kagan once criticized the Supreme Court confirmation process as lacking "seriousness and substance," but when faced with the opportunity to clarify many of her more troubling positions during days of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she was evasive and unhelpful. Her inadequate answers leave me with significant concerns on several issues, including discriminatory actions against military recruiters, in clear violation of federal law, while she was dean of Harvard Law School in protest of the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy; her hostility toward the Second Amendment while employed by the judicial and executive branches; and her support for the egregious practice of partial-birth abortion. Therefore, I will vote against her nomination to the Supreme Court.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at:www.chambliss.senate.gov . Please let me know whenever I may be of assistance.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Urgent Prayer Request
I just learned that my good friend from our pro life group at church has really bad cancer. She has a large tumor on her lung and also has liver and bone cancer. This news pains me deeply. Pam is such a wonderful person. She is the respect life leader at our church. She has just been through a long process of adopting a foster child and now they may take the child away from her. My heart aches at this news. I wish such terrible things didn't happen to such wonderful people, but I know God has a plan. Please keep Pam and her family in your prayers. We will be praying a rosary for her at 7 pm next Tuesday. I ask that you pray a rosary or if you are not familiar with the rosary please say another prayer for Pam at that time. Somehow God will make good of even this terrible situation. Thank you very much for your prayers.
God bless.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)