I was not going to write about this tonight. In fact, I wasn’t going to write about anything tonight. Getting home from a girls’ regional basketball game, I turned on the TV to watch the 10pm news. The vultures were circling. The libertine Democrats and the libertine mass media were circling for the kill because of the tragic accident Vice President Cheney was involved in. Did this accident occur while Vice President Cheney was involved in his official duties? Did this accident happen because of policies that evolved from the White House? No! Never mind! It seems to be “fair” game to the libertines in the media and the Democratic Party.
It is a personal matter. Frankly, it is none of their business. I guess the Vice President does not have a right to privacy as the rest of us expect.
If you or I was involved in the same type of accident it probably would not even made the papers. If Bill Gates was involved in this, it may have made the papers, if someone mentioned it, but no one would accuse him of being secretive or trying to cover up the news. It was a personal, unfortunate, private matter and should be covered accordingly.
But, if it is not. Then, every single member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate should immediately disclose when they, their wife, or any member of their immediate family deliberately murders their own unborn baby. That issue is an issue that is a point of contention in relation to national policy. That issue deals with intentionally murdering another human being. If that is not news worthy, then Vice President Cheney’s accident is not news worthy. How many unborn babies do you think have been murdered by members of Congress or their immediate family?
Do you recall that a certain libertine Democrat in the 1960’s while driving a car with a female passenger within drove that car off of a bridge? That libertine Democrat then left that passenger in the car while swimming to safety. That female passenger died in that accident. You would think he and his cohorts would know that not everything that occurs in live is fair game in the political arena. No empathy from this crowd!
Maybe, they have forgotten the past. Maybe, it only applies to people they disagree with. Maybe, they are desperate for any thing and don’t care how utterly ridiculous they sound. Deal with politics. You aren’t real good at politics but at least you don’t look too much like the vultures you are proving yourselves to be.
I received the following by e-mail recently. I can not confirm that it is accurate. However, it was sent by a friend who is married to a nurse. I post it as a public service message so that you may decide if it may be of benefit. I am posting it as I received it.
HEART ATTACK PROCEDURE:
Women should also know that not every heart attack symptom is going to be the left arm hurting.
Be aware of intense pain in the jaw line. You may never have the first chest pain during the course of the heart attack.
Nausea and intense sweating are also common symptoms. 60% of people who have a heart attack while they are asleep do not wake up.
The pain in the jaw happened to me and woke me from a sound sleep.
I was one of the fortunate ones. Trust me when I tell you it’s pain unlike anything you’ve ever experienced before.
Given a choice between natural child birth and a heart attack, pain-wise; it’s much easier to have a baby.
Let’s be careful; and be aware. The more we know……….
A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this mail sends it to 10 people, you can be sure that we’ll save at least one life. Read this…. It could save your life!!
Let’s say it’s 6:15pm and you’re driving home (alone of course), after an unusually hard day on the job. You’re tired, upset and frustrated. Suddenly you start experiencing severe pain in your chest that starts to radiate out into your arm and up into your jaw. You are only about five miles from the hospital nearest your home.
Unfortunately you don’t know if you’ll be able to make it that far. You have been trained in CPR, but the guy that taught the course did not tell you how to perform it on yourself.
HOW TO SURVIVE A HEART ATTACK WHEN ALONE
Since many people are alone when they suffer a heart attack,
without help, the person whose heart is beating improperly and who begins to feel faint, has only about 10 seconds left before losing consciousness. However, these victims can help themselves by coughing repeatedly and very vigorously. A deep breath should be taken before each cough, and the cough must be deep and prolonged, as when producing sputum from deep inside the chest.
A breath and a cough must be repeated about every two seconds without let-up until help arrives, or until the heart is felt to be beating normally again. Deep breaths get oxygen into the lungs and coughing movements squeeze the heart and keep the blood circulating.
The squeezing pressure on the heart also helps it regain normal rhythm. In this way, heart attack victims can get to a hospital.
Tell as many other people as possible about this. It could save their lives!!
BE A FRIEND AND PLEASE SEND THIS ARTICLE TO AS MANY FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE
The headline of a short editorial in the Peoria Journal Star (2/10/06, page A4) proclaims “Is it hot in here, or is it just us?” Quoting from that article, it further announces “NASA reports that 2005 was the warmest year on official record, with Earth’s surface temperature up a blistering 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit over a century. Likewise, Peorians are feeling the heat. This January’s average temp of 37.7 was the city’s hottest since 1880.
Interestingly, NASA immediately pooh-poohed (Isn’t that an interesting scientific word choice by the editorial writers—such class.—my addition) any speculation about the influence of pollution or so-called global warning.” “According to the aforementioned report, ‘Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time.’ We’re just from central Illinois, but isn’t that the definition of ‘global’?” The rest of the article, short though it was, seems to imply that the editorialists seem to believe that global warming is real and is an imminent threat to our existence on this planet.
The following quote is from an Associated Press article with the headline “2006 warmest January ever” printed in the Bloomington Pantagraph on 2/08/06, page A10. “The country’s average temperature for the month was 39.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 8.5 degrees above average for January, the National Climatic Data Center said Tuesday.
The old record for January warmth was 37.3 degrees set in 1953.
On the other hand, while much of the United States was basking in warm weather, parts of Europe and Asia were being battered by bitter cold. Climate details for the rest of the world for January are expected to be available next week.” Don’t quote me on this; I seem to recall that I heard on the news a few days ago that the high temperature in Russia recently was 50 degrees below zero. I do believe, in my way of thinking, that is extremely cold. I guess Russia is not part of the “global” experience. Or, maybe the editorial writers just haven’t heard about the “heat” wave in Russia.
I have a few questions I hope the editorial writers will answer.
When the warmest temperature for January in Peoria was in the record year of 1880 did that mean that we were also experiencing global warming then? If 2005 was the warmest year on record, were there other similarly warm years earlier in the last century? Were there similarly warm years in the 1700’s and/or the 1800’s? Did the editorial writers forget that the average temperature for the first 19 days of December of last year was one of the coldest average temperatures for those 19 days in many years? Did the approximately 86 inches of snow that the suburban Chicago area received in about 1976 indicate that the nation was moving into “global cooling”?
The Earth’s temperature increased by about 1.5 degrees in a century (100 years). Was the temperature of the Earth constant before the last century? Has the temperature of the Earth fluctuated over the previous centuries? Has the Earth’s temperature ever decreased over a century time span? Has the Earth’s temperature been steadily increasing since the creation of the Earth? Are there other questions that need to be explored?
It seems to me, there are a lot of variables that need to be examined besides the ones mentioned in this short editorial before any conclusion expressed by the editorial writers can be reached. However, I’m not surprised by their conclusion. They have in previous articles demonstrated a propensity not to be bothered by facts and details that don’t fit the conclusions they have drawn. Is that called selective analysis?
In my opinion, there is another major problem with the whole concept of global warming. It seems to me that many of the scientists who argue in favor of global warming also believe that evolution is a scientific fact and that the universe was created out of nothing by chance. Many of us know that is not true. If it is not, these scientists have lost their credibility. How can anyone believe their conclusions if the conclusions are based upon the lies of evolution. Evolution is not scientifically supported by the known facts. Are their conclusions on global warming also not based upon known facts?
Is it hot in here as in “hot air”, or is it just the editorial writers of the Peoria Journal Star?
On January 18, 2006 Peoria Journal Star writer Phil Luciano wrote an article opposing a proposed Illinois bill that would finance “comprehensive sex education” in the classroom. That night I wrote a post agreeing with him. He began his article with this quote. “The riddle and the solution don’t match.
Question: How do you encourage kids to abstain from sex? Answer: Teach them how to have sex—and spend millions of dollars to do so.”
On January 28, the Peoria Journal Star printed a letter to the editor on page A4 written by the President/CEO of Planned Murderhood (Parenthood) Heart of Illinois. Of course, she wholehearted supported the teaching of “comprehensive sex education” in Illinois schools.
The following quotes are from that letter. “Phil is just plain wrong. Ignorance is not acceptable. Nor is death, disease or an unintended pregnancy that could be prevented by ensuring that young people have comprehensive and accurate sexuality education.” “While parents want to talk with their children about sex and relationships, most need someone else, like a neutral teacher, to take on or supplement this role.”
Remember that these statements are from the President of Planned Murderhood. That in and of itself makes any thing that she writes very questionable. First, Phil Luciano in his article did not advocate ignorance. He made the common sense observation that if you are going to emphasis not having intercourse before marriage you then don’t teach how to go about having intercourse before marriage. He also observed what we all also know. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach this. It is not a responsibility of the school nor should it be. The CEO of Planned Murderhood claims that parents can not do it alone. She does not give any support to that assertion. Nor can she.
She further claims they need a “neutral teacher.” Yet, a Peoria Journal Star news story written about the proposed bill declares “Planned Parenthood groups are interested in applying for the grant money if it’s allocated. They could then teach the curriculum for free in schools interested in implementing it….” (Peoria Journal Star 1/15/06, page A17) Now I ask you: Does Planned Murderhood seem like a “neutral teacher” to you? The last group of people on earth that I would want teaching my child about sex is Planned Murderhood! They are neither truthful nor neutral!
Planned Murderhood, according to the same article, is an avid supporter of this bill. Why? Is it because they care about our children or because they want the money to spread their murderous lies? Ask the members of Planned Murderhood these questions among the many you could and should ask.
Is the murder of an unborn baby (an abortion) a valid method for “planned parenthood?”
Was Planned Murderhood one of the groups that originally pushed for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the murder of the unborn was constitutionally protected?
Does Planned Murderhood provide for or refer women to doctors who will murder the unborn child of that woman?
Does Planned Murderhood support the practice of “partial birth abortions?”
Does Planned Murderhood support the use of abortion pills as a method of birth control?
Will Planned Murderhood teach that an abortion pill does, in fact, murder a newly conceived child?
Does Planned Murderhood support selling abortion pills over the counter just as aspirin is?
Does Planned Murderhood believe that 13 year olds should have access to abortion pills even if opposed by the child’s parent?
Does Planned Murderhood support the murder of an unborn baby by a 13 year old without parental consent?
Will Planned Murderhood teach that having sexual relations before marriage is immoral and a sin?
Does Planned Murderhood believe that having sexual relations before marriage is immoral and a sin?
Will Planned Murderhood teach that pregnancy can and will occur even if contraceptive methods are used?
Will Planned Murderhood teach that some sexually transmitted diseases can be transmitted even when a condom is used and that condoms can and will fail?
You should get the idea. Planned Murderhood should never be allowed to spread their lies and propaganda in the public school system! Never!!!
Why is the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star obsessing over the abortion pill? What is their motive? Their latest rant was published on 1/30/06, page A4. Do they actually think we will change our position on the issue if they harp about it loud enough and long enough? Does it make them look more and more obsessed with getting an abortion pill into the hands of underage teenagers?
In their latest propaganda piece they quote a member of the advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration, “He said FDA scientists were told ‘that this approval was not to happen on the Bush administration’s watch.’” All I can say is THANK YOU to the Bush administration! Keep resolute!
Of course, one of their fallacious arguments is that this abortion pill is not an abortion pill. The following is a quote from Encarta, 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation, Abortion, II Abortion Methods, page 1. Please note that headline! This quote is under the headline of ABORTION METHODS. “A variety of drug-based abortion methods may be carried out under a physician’s supervision. In a method commonly referred to as the morning-after pill, a woman is given large doses of estrogen (a female hormone) within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse and again 12 hours later. Depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle at the time she takes the estrogen, it will either inhibit or delay ovulation, or it may alter the uterine lining, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.”
After an earlier diatribe by the editorial staff of the Peoria Journal Star, the following letter to the editor was published in the paper. (1/5/06, page A4) “Two recent editorials have discussed Plan B, the morning-after pill, also called emergency contraception (EC).
EC is a high dose of the birth control pill. It works in one of three ways. One, ovulation is inhibited—the egg is not released. Two, the transport of sperm is altered. Or three, the lining of the uterus is irritated so that the already formed human being does not attach to the lining of the uterus, which is a chemical abortion. (My underlining.)
Those who say that EC is not an abortion have changed the definition of the beginning of human life. They say life begins with implantation, after the fertilized egg has traveled the fallopian tube and implanted in the wall of the uterus. If you read an embryology text you will find human life begins when egg and sperm unite, which is called fertilization. (Duh!!! Of course, the editorial writers will not admit this because it destroys their murderous position on the issue—my addition.)
Pharmacists who know that EC can cause early abortions are refusing to fill those prescriptions.
Some side effects of EC are blood clot formation in the legs or lungs, heart attack, stroke, liver damage, gallbladder disease and high blood pressure. There also is a 10-fold increase in ectopic pregnancy—implantation of the baby in the fallopian tube, which can be life-threatening.
What are the long-term consequences of this medication? Will EC affect breast cancer risks or long-term fertility? If it “fails,” how will this affect the unborn child? I DO NOT WANT THIS MEDICATION TO BE SOLD OVER THE COUNTER TO MY 14-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER.” (My capitalization.)
Karen >>>>
Peoria
I did something I almost never do. I quoted the entire letter. I just couldn’t find any portion to leave out. As far as I know, no rebuttal letter has been published by the Peoria Journal Star nor have the editorial writers responded editorially to this letter. So again, I ask. Why is the editorial staff obsessing over the abortion pill? What is their motive?
It seems I was wrong. I did some research on partial-birth abortion today. Last night I wrote “This 2003 law was not the first time Congress voted to prevent this barbaric, evil, sinful practice. If I remember correctly, they did so over the veto of then President ‘I did not have….’ Clinton.”
Actually, I was right and wrong. Congress passed bills in both 1996 and 1997 outlawing partial-birth abortions. Both times, President “I did not have….” Clinton vetoed the bills passed by Congress. Congress, however, did not successfully override the vetoes. The 2003 law, of course, was passed while George W. Bush was President. He supported the bill and signed it into law.
The following quotes are from Encarta, 1993-2003, Microsoft Corporation, Abortion, II Abortion Methods, page 3. “Abortions at the end of the second trimester and during the third trimester require major surgery. Two such late-term procedures include hysterotomy and intact dilation and extraction.” “Intact dilation and extraction, also referred to as a partial birth abortion, consists of partially removing the fetus (unborn baby—my addition) from the uterus through the vaginal canal, feet first, and using suction to remove the brain and spinal fluid from the skull. The skull is then collapsed to allow removal of the fetus (unborn baby—my addition) from the uterus.”
The baby, of course, is murdered in the process. This description of the procedure certainly reads like it is “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized” to me. It seems, it is not to former President “I did not have….” Clinton or to the majority of the Appellate Court Judges who ruled that the Congressional law outlawing this procedure is unconstitutional. Oh, how they have sinned!
Those of us who oppose the murder of unborn babies still have work to do! This is the headline for an article published in the Peoria Journal Star on February 1, 2006, page A7—“Courts uphold abortion ruling.” Two federal “Court of Appeals” courts, one in California and one in New York, ruled that the congressionally passed law outlawing partial birth abortions is unconstitutional. The California Court is the same one which ruled that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional.
Two quotes from the article include the following, “The New York decision affirmed a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform the procedure even as he described the procedure as ‘gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.’” “The law, signed in 2003, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction (Reread that phrase a few times. It is appalling!—my addition) and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus (unborn baby—my addition) is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. The procedure is generally performed in the second trimester.”
Note the following: the original judge who ruled the law, passed in 2003 by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, unconstitutional nevertheless called the procedure which he upheld as legal as “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”
The method used to perform the procedure is described in the article as partially removing the baby from the body of the mother and then either puncturing or crushing the skull of the unborn baby.
This method can be legally used, according to the court ruling, up until the baby is actually developed by the mother. The skull is “punctured or crushed!” The procedure is “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.” It is also legal according to our activist judges!
Amendment VIII to the U.S. Constitution declares “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” No sane judge or Justice in any court in the United States would allow an individual to be punished with a death sentence by puncturing or crushing the skull of that convicted criminal. Yet, the judges in the two Circuit Courts and the two Appellate Courts have ruled that the puncturing or crushing of the skull of an innocent unborn baby must be permitted. It must be permitted!!! Are they insane???
Convicted criminals have Constitutionally protected rights. Unborn babies have no rights according to our activist judges!!! Unborn babies may be murdered anyway one chooses to murder them! Oh, what a choice!!!
Wait. This 2003 law was not the first time Congress voted to prevent this barbaric, evil, sinful practice. They did so in the 1990’s also. If I remember correctly, they did so over the veto of then President “I did not have….” Clinton.
I wrote the following letter to the editor in 1997 and sent it to the Arizona Daily Star. It was published in April of that year.
Vickie Fisher in her letter to the editor concerning “partial birth abortions” laments “how a ‘medical procedure’ finds its way into legislative halls.” But, in fact, government regulates medical practices continually from medical school requirements, to licensing practices, to determining what drugs can and can not be legally prescribed.
Secondly, she contends that the “right to privacy provided by the 14th Amendment should have prevented this ban from taking place.” Since I didn’t recall any “right to privacy” mentioned in the 14th Amendment, I reread it. It is not there! Therefore, I reread the entire Constitution from preamble to the final amendment. No where in the Constitution is a “right to privacy” mentioned let alone guaranteed.
Therefore, such a right must have been manufactured by the Supreme Court by Constitutional interpretation. “The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.” However, along with that is the concept that a law passed by a legislative body is Constitutional until ruled otherwise. Consequently, unless Ms. Fischer is now on the Supreme Court, she does not yet know if it is unconstitutional. Only nine Justices will ultimately know.
Finally, does this “right to privacy” mean that a child can be abused outside of the womb? If not, when does the “right to privacy” to murder a child within the womb end? If a child is partially delivered, can the mother in the name of “right to privacy” reach down and take the child’s life as long as the child is not completely delivered? Scary! But, then, claiming the right to murder your child in the womb is scary too!
Praise the LORD! Justice Samuel Alito is now a member of the United States Supreme Court. Pray that while on the Court he will continue to follow the United States Constitution to reach his decisions.
The libertine Democrats attempted unsuccessfully Monday to launch a filibuster to delay or end the process. (Peoria Journal Star, 1/31/06, page A2.) The attempt was ended by a vote of 72-25. True to their libertine political positions both of Illinois Senators—Durkin and Obama—voted to continue the filibuster.
Former Presidential candidate John Kerry is quoted as saying, “’It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country.’” This statement is from an individual who promised in the last presidential election to only appoint members to the Supreme Court who supported the murder of unborn babies. That unfortunately is a guiding principle of the libertine Democrats. The continued murder of unborn babies is of predominant importance. How can anyone trust or support anyone who holds such an outrageous concept of life and what is important to the welfare of the nation? (Oh yes, the Associate Press writer reverted back to the mass media’s normal practice and identified retired Justice O’Connor as a “moderate.” If one supports the murder of unborn babies, that person can not be a moderate. It is a contradiction between the term and the action supported.)
Sunday, before the Tuesday vote, Illinois Senator Obama was on a morning TV show as reported in the Peoria Journal Star (1/30/06, page A3.) (I did not watch it and never do because it is on during the time I have already left for worship service.) On that show, Senator Obama said he would support the attempt to filibuster the nomination but thought it would not be successful.
He is quoted as saying “’I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values…. When you look at his decisions—in particular, during times of war—we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch.’” (Does it matter if the action of the President is according to Constitutional principles? Does it matter if Justice Alito in his decisions is following the Constitution? It seems it does not according to Senator Obama’s stated guidelines.) He is further quoted as declaring “’We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we’re going to oppose a nominee that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake…. And frankly, I’m not sure that we’ve successfully done that.’”
What!!! Is he serious? Everyone who pays any attention what so ever to the political scene knows exactly what “values” are at stake. He, of course, is referring to the murder of the unborn although they try to avoid that specific reference now. And we know it and they should know that we know it. John Kerry said it—I’ll appoint only murders to the Supreme Court. Either Senator Obama thinks we are idiots or he thinks a core “value” of the American people is to murder unborn babies. If that is a core value of the American people then we are indeed in deep trouble and will, one way or another, answer to GOD for such unrepentant sin.
However, I believe the American people knew full well that a key component of the last Presidential election was the continuation of the murder of the unborn by judicial fiat or a return to judicial restraint and the importance of human life over personal convenience. Senator Obama is no liberal. Senator Obama is a libertine just as Senator Durkin, Kennedy, and Kerry are. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Finally, what decisions did Justice Alito have during times of war while on the appellate court? I don’t believe he has had any major decisions in relation to the present “war on terror.” If he did, they were minor in scope. He was not on the bench during the Vietnam Conflict and he certainly was not involved in the court decisions after World War II in relation to Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s placing of Japanese Americans into concentration camps.
The fact is that the major court decisions in relation to the actions of Presidents during war have occurred in relation to the Civil War and World War II. Does Senator Obama have a crystal ball? How does he know how Justice Alito will decide cases that he has not been involved in? Of course, this comment is another smoke screen to cover up the only real issue that the libertines are concerned with in this matter—the murder of the unborn. They are fanatical in their obsession to continue murder on a legal basis. Obsessed and unrepentant!!!
