SAD NEWS IN MISS BETH’S FAMILY–MISS BETH’S BROTHER SUPPORTS HILLARY!

Yes…I confess it’s true–I just found out today, my brother has signed onto the campaign to elect Hillary. I love my brother dearly, but alas, he’s always been easily infected by contagious diseases–in this case, rampant BDS.

When I asked my brother why he supported a woman who was for partial birth abortion, he said it came across on the news as she was “concerned for a woman’s health”. I explained the facts of life to him, particularly the fact that BJ himself was responsible for vetoing the ban during his tenure which led to this current Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Earl (Miss Beth’s brother) wasn’t aware of the ruling. Methinks Mr. Earl has been living in a cave the past week (not really, he has a nice home). He also suffers from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) and we had a little tussle over that one.

Back to the issue at hand. PBA–in fact NO ABORTION PROCEDURE–has anything, I repeat ANYTHING to do with “the woman’s health”. None. Roe v. Wade wasn’t even brought for that purpose. But it’s been the best lie ever told to the American public to justify state sanctioned murder. Like P.T. Barnum said–“There’s a sucker born every minute”.

Too bad all those suckers have cost 48,000,000+ DEATHS since 1973.

Here is a VERY SMALL SYNOPSIS of Roe v. Wade. All emphasis is mine.

United States Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade (1973):

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1

1). a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
2). state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman’s health.

3). abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman’s health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman (“Roe”) who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman’s life. A married couple (the “Does”) separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife’s health. The Does’ appeal was rejected as being too speculative.

The Supreme court found that: “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here….. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy…

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

Subsequent court decisions defined the term “preservation of health” very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant.

Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: “Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.”

Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: “While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others.” Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is “not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.” He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied “to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole.”

“Roe” never did obtain an abortion.

(Above information obtained from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm).

So, you see, Roe v. Wade was–in REALITY–about personal freedoms, not issues of maternal health.

********************


Now, how does Hillary view PBA? How do any of our crop of Presidential candidates view this form of murder?

Each in their own words, their reaction after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg writing the dissenting opinion, April 18, 2007.

First, the Republicans:

Mitt Romney:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Kevin Madden
(857) 288-6390
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.” [Emphasis added]

Rudy Guiliani:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. “I agree with it.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Sam Brownbeck:
“I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

John McCain:
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

“Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:” Statement By Senator McCain

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement:”Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don’t think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term en utero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA “seems” more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother’s body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

Tom Tancredo:
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions
4/17/2007
Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.)

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Now, the Democrats:

Barak Obama:
‘I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.” [Emphasis added]

John Edwards:
John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.”I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman’s right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

In their own words courtesy of Pardon the Interruption, here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/18-presidential-candidates-speak.html


And on to Hillary. BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! Let’s see what BJ did while in office!

This is HIS-STORY:

On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother – even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton’s veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton’s veto by a vote of 296-132.

Ban Passed into Law

On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.

The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy — often to six months, seven months, and even later.

Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. “You wouldn’t treat an animal this way,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House’s foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill’s chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide.

“The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches,” said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. “Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers.”

The “Health” Exception

The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women’s life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for “health” abortions – a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for “emotional well-being” or “depression.”

The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved “maternal health” [the most common being “depression”]. Another 56% were for “fetal flaws,” ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial – in other words, “elective”. [Emphasis mine]

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them “routinely” for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are “purely elective.” Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been allmost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother. The American Medical Association’s board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which “intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.” [Emphasis mine].

“Lied through my teeth”
In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America’s National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had “lied through my teeth” in the ABC “Nightline” program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons’ statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) – almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!

Above articles provided by The Jeremiah Project here: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partialbirthabortion.html

And Hillary? Her words:
From the Senate:
Statement on Supreme Court’s
Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
4/18/2007
Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.” [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we’re talking about a live baby that has its head all the way outside the mother’s body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of its body save its head outside the mother’s body. ]

Again, from Pardon My Interruption here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/08-presidential-candidates-speak.html

So–HORRORS!–Mr. Earl is working to get Hillary elected and by doing so, fully supports a woman’s right to choose murder–and get away with it. Mr. Earl did not like this expose of Billary.

I don’t care–I don’t like murderers or their accomplices (Although I will still love Mr. Earl, even for making this horrific choice)

SAD NEWS IN MISS BETH’S FAMILY–MISS BETH’S BROTHER SUPPORTS HILLARY!

Yes…I confess it’s true–I just found out today, my brother has signed onto the campaign to elect Hillary. I love my brother dearly, but alas, he’s always been easily infected by contagious diseases–in this case, rampant BDS.

When I asked my brother why he supported a woman who was for partial birth abortion, he said it came across on the news as she was “concerned for a woman’s health”. I explained the facts of life to him, particularly the fact that BJ himself was responsible for vetoing the ban during his tenure which led to this current Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Earl (Miss Beth’s brother) wasn’t aware of the ruling. Methinks Mr. Earl has been living in a cave the past week (not really, he has a nice home). He also suffers from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) and we had a little tussle over that one.

Back to the issue at hand. PBA–in fact NO ABORTION PROCEDURE–has anything, I repeat ANYTHING to do with “the woman’s health”. None. Roe v. Wade wasn’t even brought for that purpose. But it’s been the best lie ever told to the American public to justify state sanctioned murder. Like P.T. Barnum said–“There’s a sucker born every minute”.

Too bad all those suckers have cost 48,000,000+ DEATHS since 1973.

Here is a VERY SMALL SYNOPSIS of Roe v. Wade. All emphasis is mine.

United States Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade (1973):

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1

1). a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
2). state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman’s health.

3). abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman’s health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman (“Roe”) who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman’s life. A married couple (the “Does”) separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife’s health. The Does’ appeal was rejected as being too speculative.

The Supreme court found that: “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here….. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy…

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

Subsequent court decisions defined the term “preservation of health” very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant.

Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: “Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.”

Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: “While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others.” Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is “not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.” He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied “to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole.”

“Roe” never did obtain an abortion.

(Above information obtained from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm).

So, you see, Roe v. Wade was–in REALITY–about personal freedoms, not issues of maternal health.

********************


Now, how does Hillary view PBA? How do any of our crop of Presidential candidates view this form of murder?

Each in their own words, their reaction after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg writing the dissenting opinion, April 18, 2007.

First, the Republicans:

Mitt Romney:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Kevin Madden
(857) 288-6390
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.” [Emphasis added]

Rudy Guiliani:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. “I agree with it.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Sam Brownbeck:
“I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

John McCain:
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

“Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:” Statement By Senator McCain

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement:”Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don’t think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term en utero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA “seems” more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother’s body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

Tom Tancredo:
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions
4/17/2007
Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.)

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Now, the Democrats:

Barak Obama:
‘I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.” [Emphasis added]

John Edwards:
John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.”I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman’s right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

In their own words courtesy of Pardon the Interruption, here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/18-presidential-candidates-speak.html


And on to Hillary. BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! Let’s see what BJ did while in office!

This is HIS-STORY:

On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother – even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton’s veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton’s veto by a vote of 296-132.

Ban Passed into Law

On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.

The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy — often to six months, seven months, and even later.

Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. “You wouldn’t treat an animal this way,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House’s foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill’s chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide.

“The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches,” said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. “Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers.”

The “Health” Exception

The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women’s life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for “health” abortions – a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for “emotional well-being” or “depression.”

The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved “maternal health” [the most common being “depression”]. Another 56% were for “fetal flaws,” ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial – in other words, “elective”. [Emphasis mine]

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them “routinely” for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are “purely elective.” Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been allmost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother. The American Medical Association’s board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which “intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.” [Emphasis mine].

“Lied through my teeth”
In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America’s National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had “lied through my teeth” in the ABC “Nightline” program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons’ statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) – almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!

Above articles provided by The Jeremiah Project here: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partialbirthabortion.html

And Hillary? Her words:
From the Senate:
Statement on Supreme Court’s
Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
4/18/2007
Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.” [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we’re talking about a live baby that has its head all the way outside the mother’s body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of its body save its head outside the mother’s body. ]

Again, from Pardon My Interruption here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/08-presidential-candidates-speak.html

So–HORRORS!–Mr. Earl is working to get Hillary elected and by doing so, fully supports a woman’s right to choose murder–and get away with it. Mr. Earl did not like this expose of Billary.

I don’t care–I don’t like murderers or their accomplices (Although I will still love Mr. Earl, even for making this horrific choice)

SAD NEWS IN MISS BETH’S FAMILY–MISS BETH’S BROTHER SUPPORTS HILLARY!

Yes…I confess it’s true–I just found out today, my brother has signed onto the campaign to elect Hillary. I love my brother dearly, but alas, he’s always been easily infected by contagious diseases–in this case, rampant BDS.

When I asked my brother why he supported a woman who was for partial birth abortion, he said it came across on the news as she was “concerned for a woman’s health”. I explained the facts of life to him, particularly the fact that BJ himself was responsible for vetoing the ban during his tenure which led to this current Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Earl (Miss Beth’s brother) wasn’t aware of the ruling. Methinks Mr. Earl has been living in a cave the past week (not really, he has a nice home). He also suffers from FDS (Fox Derangement Syndrome) and we had a little tussle over that one.

Back to the issue at hand. PBA–in fact NO ABORTION PROCEDURE–has anything, I repeat ANYTHING to do with “the woman’s health”. None. Roe v. Wade wasn’t even brought for that purpose. But it’s been the best lie ever told to the American public to justify state sanctioned murder. Like P.T. Barnum said–“There’s a sucker born every minute”.

Too bad all those suckers have cost 48,000,000+ DEATHS since 1973.

Here is a VERY SMALL SYNOPSIS of Roe v. Wade. All emphasis is mine.

United States Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade (1973):

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1

1). a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester,
2). state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman’s health.

3). abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman’s health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions.

The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman (“Roe”) who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman’s life. A married couple (the “Does”) separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife’s health. The Does’ appeal was rejected as being too speculative.

The Supreme court found that: “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here….. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy…

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

Subsequent court decisions defined the term “preservation of health” very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant.

Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: “Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas.”

Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: “While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others.” Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is “not ‘private’ in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the ‘privacy’ that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.” He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied “to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole.”

“Roe” never did obtain an abortion.

(Above information obtained from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_supr.htm).

So, you see, Roe v. Wade was–in REALITY–about personal freedoms, not issues of maternal health.

********************


Now, how does Hillary view PBA? How do any of our crop of Presidential candidates view this form of murder?

Each in their own words, their reaction after the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg writing the dissenting opinion, April 18, 2007.

First, the Republicans:

Mitt Romney:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Kevin Madden
(857) 288-6390
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement praising the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act: “Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency. This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.” [Emphasis added]

Rudy Guiliani:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5-4 decision. “I agree with it.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this article, when Giuliani ran for Senate in 2000, he said he would not vote to restrict a woman’s right to undergo the procedure [PBA]. So, one must wonder if Rudy has had a genuine change of heart, or an expedient, politically motivated one.]

Sam Brownbeck:
“I am very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions. This ban was enacted to put an end to one of the most grotesque forms of abortion, and it is completely in line with the respect for life that is at the very heart of our Constitution. This is a great step forward for our nation’s citizens, born and unborn.” [Emphasis added]

John McCain:
For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
Contact: Danny Diaz 703-650-5550

“Cherish The Sanctity Of Life:” Statement By Senator McCain

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement:”Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” [Emphasis added]

In reality, I don’t think there is any significant difference between a late-term partial birth abortion and a late-term en utero abortion. In both cases, a living child, has its life taken from it. I guess the PBA “seems” more ghastly because the child is so close to being outside the mother’s body, thus reaching the arbitrary point of medical and legal protection.

Tom Tancredo:
Tancredo Applauds Supreme Court Decision to End Late Term Abortions
4/17/2007
Contact: Alan Moore 703.255.9898
(Washington, D.C.)

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R- CO) rejoiced over today’s Supreme Court decision, ending partial birth abortions. In these abortions, usually performed late in a pregnancy, the infant’s skull is crushed and extracted from the womb.Today the Supreme Court put an end to this barbaric practice of infanticide, Tancredo said. One can only hope this is the first step towards ending the tragedy of abortions.This ruling, won by a 5-4 margin, is the first major victory for pro-life activists since Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were appointed to the Supreme Court. Both of them voted in the majority, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.Congressman Tancredo concluded by saying, I am pleased the Court has finally begun to address the moral and intellectual travesty of Roe vs. Wade. [Emphasis added]

Now, the Democrats:

Barak Obama:
‘I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.” [Emphasis added]

John Edwards:
John Edwards for President
Apr 18, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal abortion ban.”I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake – starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.” [Emphasis added]

[According to this press release, Senator Edwards believes it is vitally important that Democrats win the 2008 election so that they can preserve a woman’s right to choose to have her baby partially delivered before killing it.]

In their own words courtesy of Pardon the Interruption, here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/18-presidential-candidates-speak.html


And on to Hillary. BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! Let’s see what BJ did while in office!

This is HIS-STORY:

On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother – even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton’s veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton’s veto by a vote of 296-132.

Ban Passed into Law

On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.

The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy — often to six months, seven months, and even later.

Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. “You wouldn’t treat an animal this way,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House’s foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill’s chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide.

“The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches,” said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. “Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers.”

The “Health” Exception

The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women’s life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for “health” abortions – a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for “emotional well-being” or “depression.”

The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved “maternal health” [the most common being “depression”]. Another 56% were for “fetal flaws,” ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial – in other words, “elective”. [Emphasis mine]

Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them “routinely” for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are “purely elective.” Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been allmost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother. The American Medical Association’s board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which “intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion.” [Emphasis mine].

“Lied through my teeth”
In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America’s National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had “lied through my teeth” in the ABC “Nightline” program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons’ statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) – almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!

Above articles provided by The Jeremiah Project here: http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partialbirthabortion.html

And Hillary? Her words:
From the Senate:
Statement on Supreme Court’s
Gonzales v. Carhart Decision
4/18/2007
Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.” [Emphasis added]

[In discussions like this, I always wonder about the rights and lives of the children, the most vulnerable and unwilling participant of this activity. In this case of PBA, we’re talking about a live baby that has its head all the way outside the mother’s body; or, in the case of a forced breach birth, has all of its body save its head outside the mother’s body. ]

Again, from Pardon My Interruption here: http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2007/04/08-presidential-candidates-speak.html

So–HORRORS!–Mr. Earl is working to get Hillary elected and by doing so, fully supports a woman’s right to choose murder–and get away with it. Mr. Earl did not like this expose of Billary.

I don’t care–I don’t like murderers or their accomplices (Although I will still love Mr. Earl, even for making this horrific choice)

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER–YESTERDAY AND TODAY

This came to my email courtesy of Cyper Pastor at Do the RIGHT Thing (here: http://dotherightthing.townhall.com/). Humorous, but unfortunately way too true.


OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.


The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

********************


MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.”

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall Overcome.” Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote

AMERICAN CONGRESS FOR TRUTH

Early this morning, I decided to email several of the sites I read daily. One of those is American Congress for Truth (here: http://americancongressfortruth.com/). I’ve heard Ms. Gabriel speak on several talk shows and this woman KNOWS what she’s talking about and is trying to spread the word the MSM doesn’t want people to know about the “religion of peace”.

The reason I was emailing these sites was I was wondering if I could link with them, using the source code such as we have for the “direct line” to Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com).

Here is my email and the response I received, as well as my answer back to American Congress for Truth:

Original email:

Dear Ms. Gabriel:

I am a blogger (Miss Beth’s Victory Dance; http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/) and would like to link my site to you, with the source code for your logo so people can click directly on your logo and go to your site.

Would that be possible and how would I do that?

Thank you,
[Redacted]
aka Miss Beth

The response:

[Redacted],

I forwarded your request to Brigitte and we would love to be linked with your web site/blog. Nice job! As to the “how to”; I will look into that. I have an intern who does our computer work and will ask him for assistance. You have any pointers on blogging? We are working on a blog; matter of fact it is my top project for the week.

Regards,
[Redacted]
American Congress for Truth

And my return response:

Hi [Redacted]!

Thank you so much for the kind words! I’ve actually only been blogging since March 14, 2007. I was “challenged” by someone on the Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com) to start my blog and join the Victory Blogroll. She suggested I use the Google blogspot as it’s free and the “widgets” are very easy to use. Widgets are the sections where you can put all the goodies, links, etc., and you can choose where and how to put them–it’s a very versatile service.

One of the Governors on the Board of Governors on the Victory Caucus is Hugh Hewitt from TownHall.com and I spend a lot of time on the TownHall website. Briefly, the Victory Caucus came about from the people who signed the NRSC Pledge against the members of Congress who “sold us out” during the non-binding resolution debates and the goal is complete and unmitigated Victory for our troops overseas, and ultimately, here at home, to keep us safe from the jihadists. I know they also offer blogsites but am not sure how versatile they are. Several on our blogroll coalition are TownHall bloggers.

I’ve heard Brigitte on Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved (I think–sometimes my office gets a bit crazed–in real life I’m a paralegal) and Hugh Hewitt. Her story is amazing, so filled with courage, and yet also hope–I turn to her as an expert on what is really going on in the “religion of peace” the main stream media tries to snow us with. I’ve got her book on order as well. Anyone with that much passion about her subject is definitely someone I want to learn more about! I know I sound like a gushing groupie, but please understand–it is true admiration for her, what she’s lived through and the fact she doesn’t appear to be embittered–simply more giving of her knowledge, her personal experience and her true desire to educate people to keep them from becoming victims.

Whew! Just get me going on a topic and I ramble forever! I hope to hear from you soon, and quite frankly, I KNOW TownHall would welcome all of you as bloggers. You would be great!

Sincerely,
[Redacted]

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to visit Ms. Gabriel’s site, read her story, order her book. This woman has TRULY been there, done that and has SEVERAL tshirts!

AMERICAN CONGRESS FOR TRUTH

Early this morning, I decided to email several of the sites I read daily. One of those is American Congress for Truth (here: http://americancongressfortruth.com/). I’ve heard Ms. Gabriel speak on several talk shows and this woman KNOWS what she’s talking about and is trying to spread the word the MSM doesn’t want people to know about the “religion of peace”.

The reason I was emailing these sites was I was wondering if I could link with them, using the source code such as we have for the “direct line” to Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com).

Here is my email and the response I received, as well as my answer back to American Congress for Truth:

Original email:

Dear Ms. Gabriel:

I am a blogger (Miss Beth’s Victory Dance; http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/) and would like to link my site to you, with the source code for your logo so people can click directly on your logo and go to your site.

Would that be possible and how would I do that?

Thank you,
[Redacted]
aka Miss Beth

The response:

[Redacted],

I forwarded your request to Brigitte and we would love to be linked with your web site/blog. Nice job! As to the “how to”; I will look into that. I have an intern who does our computer work and will ask him for assistance. You have any pointers on blogging? We are working on a blog; matter of fact it is my top project for the week.

Regards,
[Redacted]
American Congress for Truth

And my return response:

Hi [Redacted]!

Thank you so much for the kind words! I’ve actually only been blogging since March 14, 2007. I was “challenged” by someone on the Victory Caucus (www.VictoryCaucus.com) to start my blog and join the Victory Blogroll. She suggested I use the Google blogspot as it’s free and the “widgets” are very easy to use. Widgets are the sections where you can put all the goodies, links, etc., and you can choose where and how to put them–it’s a very versatile service.

One of the Governors on the Board of Governors on the Victory Caucus is Hugh Hewitt from TownHall.com and I spend a lot of time on the TownHall website. Briefly, the Victory Caucus came about from the people who signed the NRSC Pledge against the members of Congress who “sold us out” during the non-binding resolution debates and the goal is complete and unmitigated Victory for our troops overseas, and ultimately, here at home, to keep us safe from the jihadists. I know they also offer blogsites but am not sure how versatile they are. Several on our blogroll coalition are TownHall bloggers.

I’ve heard Brigitte on Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved (I think–sometimes my office gets a bit crazed–in real life I’m a paralegal) and Hugh Hewitt. Her story is amazing, so filled with courage, and yet also hope–I turn to her as an expert on what is really going on in the “religion of peace” the main stream media tries to snow us with. I’ve got her book on order as well. Anyone with that much passion about her subject is definitely someone I want to learn more about! I know I sound like a gushing groupie, but please understand–it is true admiration for her, what she’s lived through and the fact she doesn’t appear to be embittered–simply more giving of her knowledge, her personal experience and her true desire to educate people to keep them from becoming victims.

Whew! Just get me going on a topic and I ramble forever! I hope to hear from you soon, and quite frankly, I KNOW TownHall would welcome all of you as bloggers. You would be great!

Sincerely,
[Redacted]

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to visit Ms. Gabriel’s site, read her story, order her book. This woman has TRULY been there, done that and has SEVERAL tshirts!