Catherina is a 35 yr old nurse at NYC's Mt. Sinai Hospital who was hired in 2004 on the basis that she will not participate in any abortions. She is now suing the hospital for violating conscience clauses enacted to protect healthcare workers from being forced to take part in procedures that violate their beliefs. She said she felt "violated and betrayed, like I had been raped" for being forced under threats of being charged with insubordination, to partake in a second trimester murder of a 22 week old baby. Keep in mind we are able to sustain life as early as 21 weeks currently:
This is a baby born at 21 weeks--and survived
She was first told it was a miscarriage and they were doing a D & C, but once she arrived she found out it was an abortion. The woman had pre-eclampsia, which is simply pregnancy-caused high blood pressure (I had it in the last month of my pregnancy). It is not a serious complication, and is very common, and there is no reason to abort, especially since she was not even given the magnesium sulfate used to treat the condition. It was a purely elective second-trimester abortion.
What is most frustrating about the situation is that it could have waited for another nurse to come in, but the head of the hospital threatened Catherina's job if she didn't assist. So she did after protesting and through tears of disgust, horror and shock.
The nurse said she was "forced to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother's body with forceps" and carry those body parts in a cup to another area of the operating room.
We'll see how the lawsuit goes because the B.O. administration is already hard at work trying to undo the Conscience clauses that Bush enacted. It's so disgusting how important killing babies is to this man and his supporters. We have to force healthcare workers and pharmacists to participate in murder as if it's difficult to get an abortion in this country. B.O. has also undone the Mexico City policy, (in which Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Bush administration) which prohibits U.S. tax dollars from funding abortions by family planning agencies in other countries. Isn't it crazy how much he really enjoys murder, forcing innocent people to partake in it, and for YOU to even pay for it around the world? How could anyone have voted for this man when his FOCA intentions were part of the basis of his campaign (not to mention funding it)? What does he have against babies?
Susan and Norman have been in CA the past 2 weeks on a trip to visit some family that is still out there. It sounds like they had a good time- Raquel and Maxine had a nice birthday party, Norman went to Magic Mountain and played games with his friends he used to go to school with, and Susan won a little money in Laughlin with Grandma Emma + Grandpa Charles. But they were supposed to fly in to the Richmond Airport at 11:30pm last night and never made it. Their connecting flight was out of New Jersey, and it was repeatedly delayed due to the weather, until around 3am, after everyone was in line to board, they cancelled the whole flight because they "had no pilot." And the next flight they could get out of there wasn't until friday night!
So they had to wait until 7am to retrieve their luggage for some reason, only to find out that it was lost!! They said it could be in Richmond...well, if they had no flights going there, how could it be in Richmond? So Susan got a rental car this morning and is driving to the Richmond Airport, about 6 hours, on no sleep. They have been calling to directions and I believe they are close to Washington D.C. now, but I can't be sure because either both of their phones are off, or they arent charged and I am assuming the charger was probably in the luggage the airline lost..what hell!
So hopefully they can find their way home. Once they reach Richmond, it will be an easy 45 minute ride on the I-64-E. I feel bad for them what a horrible time they must be having! If John had known, he would've tried to get the day off and drive up and pick them up so Susan could sleep.
Does anybody know if she can be reimbursed for the cancelled/delayed flight, and/or the luggage lost? I don't think she got to ask them in the midst of all this crap!
We went out to the mall yesterday to find Lucas some shoes for his baptism. We found some and also got a new toy for him--he likes it!
He is sitting up very well! Eating more and more too. Sleeping? Well, he has good nights and bad nights. I am excited for his baptism this saturday and for the reception. He loves watching all those funny kids at Eileen + Chuck's!
I went to my prenatal appt yesterday and was disappointed-- I won't have an ultrasound to find out the sex until August 31st :( But I did another blood test, and got to hear the heartbeat--a strong 160 bpm!
I saw a different doctor today, and decided to ask him about abortion. He says "well, it's legal today in our country..." I said, "Doctor, you are acting like you're at a confirmation hearing!I want to know your opinion." He doesn't perform them, and wouldn't choose them for his daughter or wife, but thinks it should be legal because "it saves women's lives." I asked in what way, and he says "from back alley abortions."
Yeah...well, if a woman is dumb enough to pay someone in an "alley" to kill her baby, she's taking that risk and should deal with the consequences of infection. What an idiot to say it saves lives...and I am so sick of the "backalley abortions" statement...as if there were crazies just waiting in alley ways with knives and vacuums...
Then he procedes to brag about how he's a lawyer too. He says he doesn't like that women use it as birth control. I asked him if he thinks babies are alive before an abortion, and he said "the point of viability varies.." I asked him if he would say my 16 week old baby, whose heartbeat he just measured, is alive. He of course said, "yeah! you couldn't have an abo--well, in certain states you could." He says he's seen abortions at 20 weeks and it's gruesome and wrong. But before that it's okay? As long as it's smaller and less bloody?
I ask him in Tom Coburn style, "If the point of viability is always changing due to technological advancements, shouldn't that affect the ruling of Roe v. Wade, which states that abortion should be legal up until the fetus is viable?" He at least agreed that Roe v. Wade was flawed in attributing the right to abortion as being implied in the constitution...and yet he thinks it should be legal to save women's lives?
He then says "well I understand that there are strong opinions on both sides."
Think about that. What a total waste of breath to essentially tell me, people have opinions. Duh. That doesn't change the fact that there is a definitive RIGHT and WRONG. How disappointing that a lawyer/doctor uses such empty rhetoric to support his argument...
He tells me that people's faith has a lot to do with their strong feelings about it. I said, "this has nothing to do with my faith." and he proceded to tell me "yes it does." Basically, writing me off as a religious whacko. I said, "No, this isn't about my faith. This is about LOGIC."
Then he spews some more empty rhetoric and excuses saying it shouldn't be legal after a certain point..blah blah blah. By that time I was ready to leave, and I could tell he was too. I will not be seeing him again. But I do intend to write him a detailed letter because I didn't even get into it as far as I wanted to. It surprises me that someone with that much schooling and experience in this field, was never forced to examine these things and form any solid opinions. The letter might be thrown in the trash, but it will be a reminder not to underestimate his patients.
Last Easter, Eileen and Chuck were sponsors for John and I during our confirmation and marriage convalidation at St. Bede's. Soonafter, we found out we were pregnant with Lucas! They are great role models and very educated in the Catholic faith (and in general). They adopted 2 wonderful children from the Philippines, Peter and Daniella who are the most well-adjusted and smart kids I know! Thus, they were the perfect candidates to be Lucas' Godparents. We will be baptizing him next Saturday at the 5:30pm mass. They are also hosting the reception at their beautiful house in Toano. We had dinner at their house last sunday, and Lucas was in heaven! Eileen's brother, his wife and 3 kids are staying with them, so all 5 kids kept Lucas (and us) entertained!
John and Peter :)
Eileen's Niece + Nephew Kinsley and Landon (Lucas' favorite!)
This is Lucas laughing at Landon who he loved to watch. And then the kids performed a concert for us--even singing Veggietales songs for Lucas. :) I will take more pictures next time; I didn't get any pictures of Daniella and Madison, Eileen's oldest niece!
Lucas had his 6 month appt today. He weighed 19lbs 10oz--I thought he weighed over 20 by now! He was 28 inches, which is in the 90th percentile for height (50th percentile for weight). We are using the 1983 vaccination schedule for Lucas which is very selective; today he only got a DTP shot. Lucas did very well; cried a bit had a baba and went to sleep. The doctor did try to talk me out of being so selective, and used the example of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine which is a recent addition to the schedule. He said you don't have to die from chickenpox to necessarily have a bad reaction to it. Well, I know I might be a little biased having a close friend with a child who has a vaccine-related autism disorder, but even reading for myself about the ingredients in many of the vaccines, in conjunction with the actual diseases and how prevalent/dangerous they are, I feel confident in my decision not to inject Lucas with what I deem as unnecessary junk. The way John and I see it, in this country (barring socialized healthcare) the danger of getting chickenpox and itching for a few weeks, is much better than being injected with numerous preservatives, toxins, and aborted human/animal tissues and consequently have an autistic child, who can't be treated because his illness isn't seen by doctors and/or insurance companies as a legitimate (and treatable) injury. If courts have previously ruled in favor of families with vaccine-injury that led to brain damage, why is it so far-fetched that it can cause other injuries in other kids, with different pre-dispositions?
I wouldn't have ever read up on vaccines if it weren't for Shawna and Amy. I encourage all parents to look into what is being given to their babies and children. Even pro-vaccine books like this one:
admit that many of the diseases aren't life-threatening and some are treatable, and that many of the vaccines contain questionable ingredients. Good luck in all of your decisions as a parent, with the huge responsibility of another human life.
Here's a picture of Lucas in the outfit we bought him for his baptism next weekend:
We had a weekend full of game nights--but friday night Jim and John decided to drink their "greyhounds" and had a few too many, but the Seago's won most of the games. Shawna, Alex and I enjoyed our Red Grape Sparkling Cider. After John recovered yesterday, we went back over to try to avenge ourselves; John didn't, but I won Stone Age. When we got in the car to leave, Lucas was grunting and pushing away, and we knew he had pooped. But we didn't expect it to come out onto the carseat! We ended up giving him a bath, putting his pajamas on, and Shawna thankfully washed his carseat cover and clothes and there are no stains! Lucas was excited to take a bath as usual, but once he saw their baby shampoo with a baby on it:
He shrieked with delight! He got all cleaned up and ready for a baba, playtime and a movie; Alex's Ice Age. Here he is playing on Alex's toy: He was even scooting himself a little!
I got this adorable picture of Alex with a big grin just for me!
Then the boys went and picked us up some delicious KFC. We played Oltre Mare twice, and I think Jim won both. It's the newest game and very fun.
John's face expressing, "Yeah, we'll let you cheat, Jim."
Then we had a break to feed Lucas some applesauce and cereal, and then a baba and his Jonah movie eventually put him and Alex to sleep on the couch.
And Stone Age, which I won because I usually suck at it so I wasn't a target for sabotage:
In august it will have been a year since the start of Game Night; here's a picture of our first one last year--crazy to think I was this far along with Lucas then:
My next prenatal appt is wednesday, not sure if we will get to have an u/s, but if so, we may find out the sex! Also, Lucas' 6 month appt is tomorrow...he gets his last shot for a while. I am grateful to have learned about vaccinations through Shawna and Amy and to have a doctor that is willing to do a very selective schedule.
Tell them you don't want socialized healthcare; tell them to look at Canada, where the likelihood of surviving certain cancers is 16% lower than in the U.S. Do you ever see Americans going over to Canada for healthcare services they can't get here? No. It's the opposite. Also, world leaders come HERE for their treatment/surgeries not available in their own countries!
Tell them you don't want your tax dollars funding the murder of babies in the womb.
Ask your physicians what they think--and ask them to write their congressman/senators as a person in the medical field.
P.S. Did you guys hear B.O.'s lame speech last night? No details on what his plan will actually do, and HOW they will pay for it all. The press corps didn't get him to answer anything solid. In fact, one woman at the end asked him about his opinion on Gates, a black professor who was arrested for breaking into his own home in Chicago, rather than about his socialized healthcare plan.
And did you notice he was throwing around that inaccurate 47 million figure again? and his other scare tactics like, "skyrocketing costs" etc? His original plan was to get this done by the august recess. Well, now he is not so optimistic; he says 'by this year'. Well nothing gets done toward the end of the year, because our lazy congress gets too excited about the holidays.
Also, B.O. tried to place the blame for his failing numbers and for the failing of his healthcare plan on Republicans wanting to "break him." Well, doesn't he know that HIS PARTY has control of congress and the white house? If it doesn't pass (which it probably won't now) it will be because of the SMART democrats, who have been called the "blue dog" or moderate/conservative democrats. The ones who don't think we should be a socialist country, or the ones who at least want to be re-elected next year. Speak out as their constituents and tell them NO! It matters to them what you think--their career hinges on it!
Barbara Boxer is a freaking hag. Here's an example of that 'white guilt' I've been talking about, manifesting itself in the racist and condescending remarks from Sen. Boxer to Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry Alford. She is talking to a panel of people representing the businesses against all this "green job climate change" BS in California which is actually causing job and money loss, arguing "look at all these black men that disagree with you--go join your 'brothas'".
Good for Mr. Alford for calling her out on her blatant racism...the only problem is that Mr. Alford is a bit hypocritical. A chamber of commerce, is about, well, just that- commerce. There is no need for a "black" "white" or "hispanic" COC. But it was still great to see Boxer backed into a corner, and accused of the worst thing a liberal would ever want to be seen as; racist.
Those that don't have insurance policies that cover abortion, will pay at least a 2% higher tax rate.
I want to say "good job" to the 19 brave pro-life democrats who wrote Pelosi to express that they won't sign a bill that includes tax-funded abortions.
Kinda funny--in judge Sotomayor's one ruling on abortion, she upheld the Bush Mexico City policy, for tax-funded abortions. She stated: "the government 'is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position' with public funds." Guess that doesn't matter when they are doing a B.O. health care overhauling.
I've been reading "American Spectator", the magazine I subscribed to, initially because I wanted to read Ben Stein's column, but I enjoy the rest of it too, when I have time to really understand what they are talking about. After I heard Ben Stein talk about conservatism a few years ago, I researched him a bit and he has accomplished so much. He's very smart. I even emailed him once to ask if I could use his picture on a pro-life shirt I was designing on a website---and he wrote me back with his approval saying "I'm not scared and you shouldn't be either!" Anyway, then last year on our anniversary, John and I went to see his documentary "Expelled". I still recommend it to all of you.
Ben Stein--genius
Well, this edition was full of essays and info on Health care myths and the truth about the B.O. administrations intentions with reforming it. It's not something I was initially too concerned with, but I am now. It affects everyone, and lowers the standard of care in this country. Unless you are one of those "slobbering love affair" (courtesy Bernard Goldberg) people who love everything B.O. does, and consider Michael Moore movies to be documentaries, you should know what's in store for you and your family, and your tax dollars.
Here's some of what I learned. Whenever someone speaks about the current status of health care in the U.S., you hear wild statistics of "46 million Americans without insurance." Well, it's very misleading.
*First of all, almost 10 million of that figure, are not "Americans" legally; with the state of our economy (don't you hate that word, and how everybody throws it around yet?) we shouldn't be worried about health insurance for non-citizens.
*Another chunk of that 46 million, were only uninsured for a portion of the year, possibly between jobs says the Current Population Survey.
*Also, according to a 2003 study by the Bluecross Blueshield Association, it is estimated that about 14 million of those uninsured Americans, are completely eligible for programs like Medicaid and SCHIP for kids. They would be automatically enrolled in these programs were they ever admitted to an emergency room.
*And about 18.3 million were under age 34, and some of them may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and can do without coverage.
*And finally, many of the uninsured, choose to be uninsured, as they would rather pay the cost if they had to go to a doctor/hospital. As of 2007, about 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of >$50,000, and 9.1 million earned >$75,000--- which is the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.
Everything considered, the figure amounts to about 8.2 million Americans legitimately without health insurance because they can't afford it, but make too much to qualify for government assistance. Still a problem to be fixed, but not by bringing everyone else in the country down, along with the standard of care and all the other sneaky additions to B.O.'s socialized health care plan.
In an article by Philip Klein, he states that even health care as it is today, cannot be truly considered a 'free market' health care system, as the government already plays too big a role in direct spending and regulation. The tax code adopted after WWII resulted in favorable tax statuses for businesses that insure their employees, and burdening those who purchased private insurance. It's restricting because the employees are stuck with whatever health benefits are offered, and since the insurance can't be taken from job to job, it 'compounds the problem of unemployment.' For those who do have private insurance and thus pay higher taxes, many states require certain benefits...like in vitro fertilization and morbid obesity treatment.
Another myth about health care: "Universal health care will save money, because we're already picking up the tab for the uninsured when they obtain care they don't pay for." In short, the reality is that the total cost of uncompensated care in 2008 was $56 billion--which actually is only about 2% of the nation's overall health care expenditures in the B. O. plan, estimated to be between $1.2 and $1.5 TRILLION. Not really saving money are we?
One of the biggest myths: "Other countries spend less than the U.S. but get better health care in return." But in reality, they set budgets and ration care--meaning they reserve certain treatments for over a certain age, even if you need it now. Klein sites the recent example of actress Natasha Richardson's death. After a head injury caused by a ski accident, she was forced to take a 2 1/2 hour drive to Montreal because helicopters weren't available, because they were too expensive for all hospitals, and their medical resources were "allocated according to the biggest gain for the biggest need," -Daniel LeFrancois director of Quebec's pre-hospital care. In comparison a 7 yr old girl in the U.S. survived a similar brain injury, as she was rushed to the hospital by helicopter. Who knows if Richardson, would've survived, or if the girl would've died in different circumstances, but it still reveals the difference in the quality, timeliness, and availability between a socialized system, and a somewhat-free market system.
Many of the countries with government run insurance, have huge shortages in doctors, to the point that people die from simple illnesses because they are refused admittance to overcrowded hospitals/emergency rooms--common in Britain and Japan. In Sweden, it's so bad that the country's own prime minister was put on an 8 month waiting list for surgery. In France in 2003, about 15,000 people died in a heat wave--"a crisis exacerbated because many doctors were on summer vacation."
Haven't we learned that free markets and capitalism works best? Socialism eliminates competition. And as Sen. Graham said,
"Competition regulates quality and price better than government control."
Many proponents of socialized care, constantly say that there are 'skyrocketing costs' that 'threaten the stability of the American family.' It's not true- if you look at this chart, spending for health care is at an all-time low since 1970. Regardless, B.O. wants to cut that 6 percent by 1.5 percentage points each year he is in office...forcing budget cuts for hospitals, and shortages in machinery and nurses, and increases in the waiting periods for treatment. It will cause more layoffs in the medical field, which currently employs 14 million Americans-- "more than 10 times the U.S. workforce at General Motors and Chrysler."
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Rahm Emanuel, B.O.'s chief of staff, (no conflict of interest there) is an advocate for cutting costs and government-run health care. He even goes so far as to criticize the Hippocratic Oath, blaming it for doctor's "overuse" of medical care. It's ridiculous how much damage this administration wants to do, claiming it's saving money, while they sign TRILLION dollar bills funding BS programs that actually harm Americans. Unless you go to Michael Jackson's or Anna Nicole Smith's doctor, you probably never went to a doctor and felt that they were "overusing" care or "over diagnosing." I haven't. In fact I feel like I always have to push them to do more. Under B.O.'s plan, doctors who are not "meaningful users" of care, face financial penalties by 2014. Can you imagine being a doctor and having that over your head everyday? Every patient you get, you have to gauge whether they are worth the treatment. Spending for research will also be cut, delaying any potential medical breakthroughs. This country will be stagnant with no progression in any aspect.
Dr. Emanuel also explained in a Health Care Watch" article:
"every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bail out, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health reform effort."
Real slick.
And you can bet that if this health care bill passes, you and I will be paying through our taxes, for ABORTIONS. Killing babies is B.O.'s top priority remember? Here is what Peter Orszag, White House Budget Director has to say about the possibility of tax-funded abortions:
Doctors are already leaving the medical field and moving on to other more stable careers. They are already turning away Medicaid patients because the portions the government pays, barely cover any of the treatment costs incurred by the patients. So we already have a decrease in doctors. Does this bill sound good for anybody? The people that voted for Obama because of his intention for healthcare reform, probably didn't expect all of this. The care they will get under his plan (if they ever are seen) will not compare to the care they would get if they were given any choice in policies across state lines, to pick and choose the coverage they need, and competing insurance agencies could give more options for less money. It should be just like auto insurance, you call for quote, and pick the coverage you want. But no, everyone has to be brought down, in the name of saving money, which isn't being saved, but printed off for trillion dollar bills. It's scary when we can say "a trillion dollars" and not think twice about it.
We finally got back into the routine of Game Night at Jim + Shawna's this weekend. John's new job has guaranteed 2 day weekends now, and it usually lines up well with Jim's schedule. We are all just in disbelief that we will soon collectively have 4 babies running around, at least 3 of them little boys! So much for game nights then! But Alex and Lucas were very good last night and either entertained themselves, watched tv, ate, sat in one of our laps and finally slept. Alex's favorite movie is Ice Age, and Lucas' is veggietales 'Jonah', but they were polite and watched each others movies lol. I thought this was so cute, because Alex doesn't like kids or babies and their crying, so this was a big deal for Alex to want to be close to Lucas and play next to him, even smiling at him at some points. Plus, it's so cute that Lucas stares at Alex and wants to play with him. These videos are not very clear, but I think you can still see the 2 cute boys befriending each other:
As for the adults, we tried a new strategy game called "Oltre Mare" (your guess is as good as mine for the pronunciation) and it's really fun! I won the first game of it, but that doesn't count does it Jim? It was only $10 online! And then we played the usuals. I won Citadels, and then (since that's the only game Jim doesn't win) he got to pick the next one, which was Acquire, a game about stocks that I usually suck at...I won, with $63,400--possibly the new high score! (Jim keeps a record of every score..lol)
And John won Ticket to Ride:
Shawna won the game of games, Settlers, which was the first one we started game night with, about a year ago (wow, it's a year long tradition already!):
I am going to start taking more pictures of our game nights but here are the few I took:
My pictures/video aren't as clear as usual, because I usually use Susan's camera which is really new (ours is ~3 years old) and Susan took hers to California with Norman for their vacation--hope you guys are having fun and taking lots of pictures! Lucas misses you (and we kinda do too).
I know a lot of people that read my blogs, get bored of my long ones on political issues, but I just wanted to ask you to at least read the bold parts and take some time to think about them logically. Not necessarily where you stand on the issue, but objectively, to see the contradictions, the questionable wording, and how it should affect, not just the legality of abortion, but the current thought of many Americans on the issues of life and death.
It is obvious in these hearings, one can never honestly give their position on abortion away, as that is the end-game of the charade. As I was questioned in my last post, the reason why it matters that Sotomayor won't answer questions definitively (or at all), is because most of the questions she has been asked are not hypotheticals. In previous confirmation hearings, it's a known fact that no nominee should be expected to predict their future rulings on any certain issue--and let's not pretend that we don't know that that hypothetical is more often than not, a ruling on the legality of abortion.
Dr. & Sen. Tom Coburn
So, when she was grilled by Sen. Tom Coburn on the issue, it's fair game for her to answer with a 'non-answer' revolving around legal mumbo-jumbo. Let me just give you all a little background info on Coburn. He is a doctor, and during his tenure as an obstetrician, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. In response to Obama's wish for FOCA to pass, which could potentially force all OB's to perform abortions, he said he would like to see them take him out of his office and arrest him for not performing one. A stand-up guy! Therefore, the abortion issue is very important to him. I respect him for that. In past confirmation hearings, he has always brought up the issue to nominees, that it troubles him that
we define death by the lack of brainwaves and a heartbeat, but that the presence of both which can be measured in a baby at 39 days post conception, doesn't indicate life?
Of course, it's pretty much a rhetorical question, but it is a huge contradiction. Another issue that Coburn brought up was another very hypocritical but common view of our Constitutional law. He asks her about gun rights and about abortion. In response to her answers, he asks
why is it considered 'settled law', for a woman to have the right to abort, which is not enumerated in the constitution, but not 'settled law' for citizens to own guns, when that right is incorporated in the constitution?
But the most crucial part for me, was when he quoted the Roe v. Wade ruling, which again was very vague, stating
a woman has a right to abortion, up to the point at which the fetus becomes viable.
and then he added:
with today's advancements in technology, we can keep a baby alive from as early as 21 weeks. Should it have any bearing whatsoever on the way we look at Roe v. Wade?
Unanswered of course. What a weak ruling to say that the right to kill your baby is implied in the constitution under the 'right to privacy'.
Justice Ginsburg
An interesting sidenote, it was recently revealed that current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a New York Times interview:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong (emphasis added)."
Why isn't anybody "outraged" (cue: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al) at how racist that is? You know she was inferring the poor black neighborhoods; and it has worked. Black women are 3 times more likely then whites or hispanics to abort their babies--partially due to the fact that they are targeted by the abortion industry. Planned Parenthood clinics are often built near poor black communities, and even offered discounts (for example after women affected by Hurricane Katrina were offered 'free abortions.') It really is a business ya know. For more information go to blackgenocide.org Ginsburgs rulings are all pretty confusing. By the way, she dissented in the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
To watch the great videos of Coburn questioning Sotomayor, click here pt 1pt 2pt 3
Lucas and I had a nice day today. Daddy had duty at work so he will be home tomorrow morning. He gets a 3-day weekend so that will be nice. But today, I took Lucas swimming at grandma's and he really enjoyed it. He loves to splash with his hands and it seems like he is already learning how to kick with his legs and swim. He loved it. Then we went home and he was whiney so I fed him some peas. I looked away for a minute and he was sleeping! I quickly got the camera because he is so adorable. Sorry its shakey--i was trying so hard not to laugh and wake him!
I gave him a nice warm bath afterward and a bottle and he's watching his favorite Veggietales movie and going to sleep. I love him so much! Here he is enjoying his new toy!
Does anybody actually listen to the words this nominee is saying? It's almost like people are under that hypnotic funk of
"i like the way she talks..uh duh!"
that helped B.O. get elected. You know how on elementary school standardized tests they have you read a paragraph and point out the parts that are "fog" and then what parts were necessary to the questions at hand? You don't? Well I do. And that's exactly what I am reminded of when I hear her convoluted responses that in no way answer the question asked. I guess it's an improvement from just stating "no comment", but many liberal media pundits are whining over republican senators continuing to question her "wise Latina" and "courts make policy" statements, and her dismissal of the New Haven firefighters case, because she never gives a definitive answer or explanation! She could have helped that at least somewhat, by admitting that the 'wise Latina' comment was her mistake or that she misspoke. But after all, it doesn't really matter if she admits any wrong-doing because this is pretty much going to be a party-line vote, and if you couldn't tell by the salivating of certain lib senators, she's got it in the bag.
Here's my favorite show, Red Eye's summary of what is going down:
Fast forward to 2:26 if you want "Hardball's" blowhard Chris Matthews to make you barf. And then to 2:48 to have Jim Norton make you feel better... and then to 3:20 to have that handsome former CIA operative Mike Baker make you chuckle.
And today we had Ben Cardin taking a turn at kissing her ass, as he excitedly invited her to the Baltimore stadium--yes, during the hearings. This hearing goes from a serious questioning on a broken record by republicans who never get answers, to a joke with each democrat groveling for her, her large family's, their Latino constituency's, and the Messiah B.O.'s approval.
What irks me about the wise Latina thing, is that instead of owning up to a racist mistake, she does the backhanded 'apology' that I hate, by saying I'm sorry that YOU misunderstood me or, it's unfortunate that people interpret it THAT way. Look at this quote, and then look at the next one, and tell me they are both equally acceptable:
“[A] wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
and then:
"A wise white man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an Asian woman who hasn't lived that life."
Already, it's established that we hold her to different standards than every other nominee. But it wasn't just that she mentioned these sentiments half a dozen times in her career, she went farther in stating that she disagrees with former Justice Sandra Day O'connor's claim that "a wise old woman and a wise old man reach the same conclusions." Her only explanation for these comments was that she was trying to "inspire" young Latino law students, and female law students to strive for greatness...the question was asked by Sen. John Cornyn, of whether she thinks that her statements may have influenced those audiences to believe that white male judges are any less fair or wise in their rulings--but it's obvious that that is what she wanted to imply. To see Sen. Cornyn's questioning about the New Haven case, click here.
I appreciated Sen. Graham's questioning of Sotomayor, although he was never truly answered. He questions her on her 12 years of service to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, on which she was a board member. She claims to be unaware of the fact that the fund fought for tax-payer funded abortions. They said that when abortions for low-income women are not funded by tax-payers, it is equivalent to slavery...She didn't distance herself from that decision, or even seem bothered by the idea.
In the second video, Graham questions her about military law, regarding whether the enemies captured must be released to return to battle at a certain point. She admitted she isn't knowledgeable on military law, but he asks her to consider this question for further questioning later on. He also in the third video, repeatedly asks her if abortion is mentioned in the Constitution, whether it states at what point in what trimester a baby is viable (as the weak and ridiculous Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable" which isn't vague at all huh?), or whether the constitution "prohibits the legislative body at the federal or state level... from protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester?" She couldn't answer, other than , "no the word abortion is not used" and the expected explanation that the constitution has 'broad provisions'.
In this, Graham is quoting numerous lawyers statements on her temperament from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, in which lawyers routinely anonymously leave remarks on judges. From "she's a terror on the bench," and "she lacks judicial temperament" and "she abuses lawyers" to "she'll attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like." Although she defends herself by saying she 'asks tough questions' and 'pushes lawyers' to do more, it's quite obvious that she has been and will be an activist judge.
Frank Ricci, his co-plaintiffs and their attorney
One of the biggest and most recent conflicts was her involvement in the dismissal of the Ricci v. DeStefano case. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff filed the suit initially because he is dyslexic and paid $1000 for tutoring and studying to pass the test, which he did. The firefighters who were discriminated against as a result of her dismissal (later to be victorious when the case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court), were in attendance at the hearing. It was revealed that she and the other 2 panelists who reviewed their case, dismissed it with an unsigned unanimous dismissal of 8 sentences. They didn't even allow it to go to a jury to decide, and the only reason it was even seen by the Supreme court (and subsequently overturned) was because the ironically Puerto Rican second-circuit Judge Jose Cabranes (nominated by Clinton) read about the case and urged the Supreme Court to review it.
Justice Samuel Alito-the good guy*
An interesting new revelation, was that the possible motivation (according to Judge Alito) was that the mayor and other city officials seem to have
"worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”
Furthermore, Alito says:
This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “‘kingmaker.’” … On one occasion, “[i]n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.”
This article explains the deep connections Mayor DeStefano has with the political activist Kimber, in his campaigning etc. Here is a threatening statement Kimber put out back when the case was first made in 2004, trying to (and somewhat successfully) intimidate the Mayor, the city, and the district court:
Rev. Boise Kimber
“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites and one Hispanic and no blacks. . . . I would hope that you would not put yourself in this type of position, a political ramification that may come back upon you as you sit on this [Board] and decide the future of a department and the future of those who are being promoted. … “(APPLAUSE).”
Good for Alito and the 4 other concurring judges! Sotomayor says the Supreme Court basically set a new precedent for these types of cases, and therefore before that point, she and the other panelists didn't have any other option. BS. There is no doubt in my mind that were she already sitting on the Supreme Court bench, she would have sided with Ginsberg in her dissent, regardless of any "new" perspectives the court saw.
Yes, as Graham says, barring a total "meltdown," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. But it should matter to all of us, that she is being given the power as a Supreme Court justice, of basically unchecked power, with the true capabilities (as she pointed out before she knew she would be in this position) of virtually making policy, through setting precedents. Take note of all the corruption, prejudice and incompetence, and use your votes in 2010, and 2012, to make a stand for the Constitution, justice, life, for true American values.
What is the worst thing you can be accused of in this country today? Well, you get dirty looks and attacked for being pro-life, but the worst accusation, and oddly the most common, is to be called racist. It's everyone's worst fear, even preventing them from forming and expressing opinions that are, to any intelligent person, in fact not racist. Why, at a time in this land that we have a black president, and numerous civil rights movements and groups in place to further advance minority achievement, is race becoming more and more a controversy? As Robert Bork says in reference to the feminazi's growing resentment,
"Revolutions, it is commonly observed, often break out not when circumstances are next to intolerable but when conditions begin rapidly to improve."
His explanation for both feminist and minority animosity is "the sudden and dramatic widening of choices about life, a new freedom and responsibility that frightens." He quotes black author Shelby Steele:
"With the decline in racism the margin of black choice has greatly expanded, which is probably why race-holding is so much more visible today than ever before. But anything that prevents us from exploiting our new freedom to the fullest is now as serious a barrier as racism once was."
Shelby Steele
Whatever white racists are left in this country, they are a few uneducated 'hicks' who pose no real threat and are mocked by all of the rest of us. The racism I see today, is in fact against whites, even though the word "racist" today, ONLY connotes prejudice against blacks, hispanics, middle-easterners etc. And 'hating whitey' (as David Horowitz calls it) is encouraged by everyone--especially white celebrities, politicians, and media---what Steele diagnoses as "White Guilt." A 1990 New York Times/CBS poll of black New Yorkers revealed:
---10% agreed that AIDS "was deliberately created in a laboratory in order to infect black people." -19% thought it "might possibly be true."
---25% thought the government "deliberately makes sure that drugs are easily available in poor black neighborhoods. -35% thought it was "possibly true."
John Singleton
John Singleton, who made Boyz 'N the Hood said, "If AIDS was a natural disease, it would have been around 1000 years ago. I think it was made in order to kill undesirables. That would include homosexuals, intravenous drug users and blacks."
Jackson & Sharpton
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are prime examples of "race hustlers"; they show up when any story involves black people, and attack even before the facts are out. Sharpton jumped to Tawana Brawley's defense when it turns out she fabricated her 'six white men raped me' story. Black scholar Glenn Loury blames the 60's for training blacks how to get ahead: "We learned too well during the upheavals of that decade how to be America's pre-eminent victims." He cited a story about Jesse Jackson: "[There was a] series of killings of black children in Atlanta, which the activist Dick Gregory said was the work of a disease control center pursuing a cancer-fighting drug allegedly found in the tips of their sex organs." Right away, Jesse Jackson was there: "It is open season on black people...These murders can only be understood in the context of affirmative action and Ronald Reagan's conservative politics." There was great disappointment when the killer turned out to be black, and was convicted before a black judge, and a largely black jury.
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell, an American economist, headed an international study of government-mandated racial preference programs and found these common factors:
1. Preferential programs, even when explicitly and repeatedly defined as 'temporary', have tended not only to persist but also to expand in scope, either embracing more groups or spreading to wider realms for the same groups, or both. Even preferential programs established with legally mandated cut-off dates, as in India and Pakistan, have continued far past those dates by subsequent extensions. 2. Within the groups designated by government as recipients of preferential treatment, the benefits have usually gone disproportionately to those member already more fortunate. 3. Group polarization has tended to increase in the wake of preferential programs, with non-preferred groups reacting adversely, in ways ranging from political backlash to mob violence and civil war. 4. Fraudulent claims of belonging to the designated beneficiary groups have been widespread and have taken many forms in various countries.
Bork explains, "Proportional representation in various fields has been reached by diktat, by depriving people of freedom, which is what a policy of racial preference does." Bork points out that many liberals admit the time has come to end affirmative action as it stands;
Joseph Califano
Joseph Califano who under the Johnson and Carter administration pushed for affirmative action policies wrote in 1989, that the policy was intended "only as a temporary expedient to speed blacks' entry into the social and economic mainstream," and it's "time is running out."
Susan Estrich
Even Susan Estrich, a law professor who worked for the Dukakis campaign in 88 said, "For all it's good intentions, affirmative action was never meant to be permanent and now is truly the time to move on to some other approach."
Ward Connerly
Ward Connerly, a University of California Regents board member said, "I tell you with every fiber of my being that what we are doing is inequitable to certain people...To those who say 'Affirmative action now, affirmative action as it is now'--that's what George Wallace said about segregation."
And today, we start the confirmation hearings of another official nominated on the basis of her race, and the 'historic aspect' of having a latina women on the U.S. Supreme Court. When will we nominate, reward, and acknowledge achievements based on true merit and not by extra credit points for race, gender, or other backgrounds yet to be exploited? I have already posited my opinion on Sotomayor and her statements regarding the duty of the court, and her 'richness of experience as a latina woman.' But it's so frustrating to watch the (liberal and moderate) senators commend her for her race and sex, rather than judge her past rulings and assess her capabilities for ruling with what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind, over her own bias and ideology.
Sonia Sotomayor
Just last year she was part of a second-circuit panel in Ricci v. DeStafano that upheld the right of the City of New Haven to throw out a test for firefighters, simply because no african-americans were able to pass it. The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned this decision, agreeing that the 17 european-americans and 1 hispanic that did pass the test to be promoted to management, were in fact the ones being discriminated against--violating the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. And now she is going to be joining them in the highest court of the land. There are just too many instances of her admissions that she can't separate her prejudices and partiality from what is right according to the Constitution. And while there are a few senators willing to confront these statements:
Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions
Sen. Lindsay Graham
Sen. John Cornyn
I can already hear them being called 'racist and/or sexist'.
by the way, someone was just removed from the hearings for yelling "Abortion is Murder!" --just to let you know, it wasn't me! Let's hope Sotomayor is a true Roman Catholic (unlike Biden, Kerry, the 54% of catholics who elected Obama etc) and rules to overturn Roe v. Wade
