Posts
From a Concerned Wife and Mother Regarding
the No Gun Registration Amendment and Gun Registration
Dear Senator McConnell,
I am a mother and grandmother. I home educated my children and am active in the Tea Party, my local Republican Party, and the Home Schooling Alliance of Arkansas. My husband is a small business owner. Within my family are law enforcement officers, teachers, attorneys, and ministers. We are a conservative and traditional value based family with members in throughout the United States as well as your home state of Kentucky. This weekend I spoke before a traditionalist organization in D.C. in regard to the incremental legal decline of the Christian family in this nation and the rise of socialism.
We are all deeply saddened that it now appears you will not back the NO-GUN REGISTRATION Amendment sponsored by Rand Paul. You have spoken out in defense of a tougher stance toward illegal immigration. You have spoken out in defense of limited government. And you have spoken out against many of the insane entitlement programs that are draining our economy. But how will you vote in this most important issue that our civilization pivots on?
Surely, Mr. McConnell, you are aware that allowing any federal agency the authority to track and demand the 4473 form of legal gun owning citizens is a slippery slope toward the eventual abandonment of our Constitutionally protected God given right to keep and bear arms.
Taking away our right to privacy from the intrusive eyes of political engineers who desire to dismantle traditional America – in the name of “security” will be disastrous in the years ahead for all freedom loving men and women everywhere.
I urge you to support this important amendment to the extension of the Patriot Act.
I trust you will side with the Constitution and the legal opinions of our founding fathers.
Sincerely,
Rachel Pendergraft
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Another White Guilt Trip
Below is an article by Margaret Krome who writes a bi-monthly opinion piece for the Capitol Times in Wisconsin. My comments are mixed in with hers.
Last week I attended a workshop entitled “Dismantling Racism” put on by the nonprofit group Growing Power in Milwaukee.
We did an exercise where white people in the room read statements about white privilege. I related to several of them. “I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well-assured that I will not be followed or harassed.” “If a traffic cop pulls me over, or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.” I even could relate to, “Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.”
It is nice that she thinks so highly of herself. In my experience, and by my conversations with people all over the U.S. as well as keeping updated on trends, statistics, etc. I feel it is safe to say that Ms. Krome doesn't know what she is talking about. First off, everyone, and I mean everyone judges other people by appearances. However, I don't necessarily mean skin color or race. Value judgments are made about people's socioeconomic class all the time. It is often easy to spot the difference in someone who is from a working class background, middle white collar background, upper middle class, etc. It is in the clothes that are worn, the cars that are driven, the hair, the style, the health of the skin. Etc. It doesn't always hold true. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart used to tool around the Ozark Hills here in overalls and an old pick up truck. But for the most part, those who have money or at least don't worry about money are easily identified just by appearance. I would wager that Ms. Klone feels privileged not because she is white, but because she is financially secure. Working class whites aren't guaranteed success just because they are white. They have to work like everybody else. And middle class whites aren't guaranteed success either. In fact, a big part of their income is spent paying the taxes to keep entitlement programs in this country afloat. I believe that a white person and a black person dressed equally as well will get the same treatment by financial institutions etc. And those who don't appear to have much in the bank or in financial distress, whatever the color will also get the same treatment.
But I was amazed by how few of the statements I, as a person of white privilege, had previously considered. I hadn’t noticed that “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.” Nor had I previously recognized as a privilege never being asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. Or that I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race. These and many other statements were written by Peggy McIntosh in a 1990 article that described such unearned assets as “like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions ... tools, and blank checks.”
So being called a "credit to your race" is now considered racist? These so called "unearned assets" aren't racist. These "assets" mentioned such as not being late and its reflection is in fact a reflection on civilized society. Rooted deep within Western Christian civilization is a certain code that the U.S. was built upon. These are common courtesies, a certain refined etiquette, an appreciation for timeliness, and attention to detail. And most of all is the high value we place on law and order. A community run in such fashion and the recipients of a culture, whose bedrock is white Christian civilization, aren't unduly privileged. Our culture is a part of who we are and it is an outgrowth of our race. Yes, if you value these concepts then it is a privilege to be born into a race that manifests these values in the building of communities. It is called our birthright. Those who do not share this birthright, often do benefit from it if they conform to the standards of Western Christian civilization, but it is not their birthright because it is not who they are.
As the statements continued, people of color nodded knowingly. An African-American woman from Oklahoma added the privilege of a white person’s son or brother being able to go running without causing suspicion or fear. To which a Brooklyn minister noted that he doesn’t let a group of young African-American men whom he mentors even walk together in the neighborhood without accompanying them; they likely would be stopped and possibly worse. Had it ever occurred to me that my son’s ability to go for a jog was a privilege? No.
Again, it is white guilt. Is Ms. Klone's son privileged because he can jog without being stopped? Does he live in a financially stable area where jogging is an everyday of occurrence? If he was a white guy running in a black neighborhood I bet he would be stopped. Would that be considered racist? Or would the cop be suspicious that a white guy out of place in a black neighborhood might be looking to score drugs? And would it be racist to be suspicious of a group of black youths walking down the street together? Even black cops get called racist or Uncle Toms for being suspicious of a group of black youths walking down the street. How are these youths dressed? Are their pants hanging down below their rear end? Do they carry themselves with an apparent attitude? The crime rate among black men is staggering and white crime pales in comparison. Could it be the behavior associated with them that gets them stopped or is it just because they happen to be black or Mexican?
White privilege isn’t the same as racism, which involves using social institutions to carry out systematic discrimination against a racial group. But I’m conscious of both right at the moment, as federal and state budget debates are clearly about whom to advantage — wealthy, mostly white people, or poor people, many of them people of color. For example, two-thirds of the cuts proposed by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan in his Fiscal Year 2012 budget would come from programs that serve low-income people — Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants and low-income housing.
I was in Ryan’s office in Washington, D.C., last week when a man from New Jersey popped in “just to thank the Congressman, because I’m a taxpayer too.” He was white. When a colleague of mine arrived, he had a hard time joining our meeting because a crowd of people dressed up in tea party costumes was jamming the doorway to cheer Ryan on. They were all white.
Three weeks before, I was in the office of a newly elected tea party conservative, and I heard similar accolades about Republican funding cuts —all from white people.
Okay, the main thing Ms. Krome has pointed out was that the majority of taxpayers she witnessed were white. Is that supposed to mean something? White people paying taxes can't be good according to Ms. Krone's logic. It must be unearned. They are just the recipients of unearned privilege. And what about the unearned privilege of receiving government handouts? That doesn't seem to bother Ms. Krone one bit.
At the same time, a large delegation of people working with community action programs was at the Capitol — and I heard no such accolades from them. They understood that the Republican budgets being unleashed particularly target the most vulnerable population in the nation — many of them people of color.
Startling..really? A group of community action leaders (kind of like the ACORN group Obama worked with that was instrumental in the nation wide home foreclosure fiasco where banks were forced to set aside the traditional idea that you get to buy a home if you can afford it and if you don't then you wait - Ahhh yes, but this was so that people of color around the country could have what the allegedly white "privileged" middle class had - a piece of the American dream. Ms. Klone spoke about financial institutions and corporations discriminating against minorities - hogwash! If anything they are throwing their weight behind every so-called disadvantaged minority neighborhood or family they can get their hands on so they don't get called the "R" word! Racist!d So these community leaders were mostly people of color - shocker! And they are working to take even more tax dollars away from the white (and every other) taxpayer.
I was asked at last week’s workshop if I consider myself a racist. Although I benefit from white privilege, I don’t believe I’m racist. But racism is very real in the lives of millions of Americans, and the only way it gets changed is when people who benefit from it work to change the system so that benefits accrue to all or to none. Republican budget proposals are dangerously biased to champion a system that privileges wealthy, mostly white, people. It’s time to recognize these budgets for what they are.
Poor Ms. Krone! She is filled with so much guilt I don't know how she can sleep at night. But since she's clamoring for a change to benefit all (which only works if you don't have a society based on entitlements and everybody works for what they have) then to ease her privileged guilt ridden mind I challenge her to downsize her residence - maybe get rid of it altogether because she probably also buys into the false idea that we stole the land from the Indians. So Ms. Krone sign your home or condo over to the nearest tribe. Send your paycheck each week to that community group that you raved about, and basically get rid of what you have and give it away. You apparently didn't deserve it after all. And I for one could live without your nauseous drivel infecting others who potentially will come down with guilt fever!
Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times.
Last week I attended a workshop entitled “Dismantling Racism” put on by the nonprofit group Growing Power in Milwaukee.
We did an exercise where white people in the room read statements about white privilege. I related to several of them. “I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well-assured that I will not be followed or harassed.” “If a traffic cop pulls me over, or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.” I even could relate to, “Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.”
It is nice that she thinks so highly of herself. In my experience, and by my conversations with people all over the U.S. as well as keeping updated on trends, statistics, etc. I feel it is safe to say that Ms. Krome doesn't know what she is talking about. First off, everyone, and I mean everyone judges other people by appearances. However, I don't necessarily mean skin color or race. Value judgments are made about people's socioeconomic class all the time. It is often easy to spot the difference in someone who is from a working class background, middle white collar background, upper middle class, etc. It is in the clothes that are worn, the cars that are driven, the hair, the style, the health of the skin. Etc. It doesn't always hold true. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart used to tool around the Ozark Hills here in overalls and an old pick up truck. But for the most part, those who have money or at least don't worry about money are easily identified just by appearance. I would wager that Ms. Klone feels privileged not because she is white, but because she is financially secure. Working class whites aren't guaranteed success just because they are white. They have to work like everybody else. And middle class whites aren't guaranteed success either. In fact, a big part of their income is spent paying the taxes to keep entitlement programs in this country afloat. I believe that a white person and a black person dressed equally as well will get the same treatment by financial institutions etc. And those who don't appear to have much in the bank or in financial distress, whatever the color will also get the same treatment.
But I was amazed by how few of the statements I, as a person of white privilege, had previously considered. I hadn’t noticed that “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.” Nor had I previously recognized as a privilege never being asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. Or that I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race. These and many other statements were written by Peggy McIntosh in a 1990 article that described such unearned assets as “like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions ... tools, and blank checks.”
So being called a "credit to your race" is now considered racist? These so called "unearned assets" aren't racist. These "assets" mentioned such as not being late and its reflection is in fact a reflection on civilized society. Rooted deep within Western Christian civilization is a certain code that the U.S. was built upon. These are common courtesies, a certain refined etiquette, an appreciation for timeliness, and attention to detail. And most of all is the high value we place on law and order. A community run in such fashion and the recipients of a culture, whose bedrock is white Christian civilization, aren't unduly privileged. Our culture is a part of who we are and it is an outgrowth of our race. Yes, if you value these concepts then it is a privilege to be born into a race that manifests these values in the building of communities. It is called our birthright. Those who do not share this birthright, often do benefit from it if they conform to the standards of Western Christian civilization, but it is not their birthright because it is not who they are.
As the statements continued, people of color nodded knowingly. An African-American woman from Oklahoma added the privilege of a white person’s son or brother being able to go running without causing suspicion or fear. To which a Brooklyn minister noted that he doesn’t let a group of young African-American men whom he mentors even walk together in the neighborhood without accompanying them; they likely would be stopped and possibly worse. Had it ever occurred to me that my son’s ability to go for a jog was a privilege? No.
Again, it is white guilt. Is Ms. Klone's son privileged because he can jog without being stopped? Does he live in a financially stable area where jogging is an everyday of occurrence? If he was a white guy running in a black neighborhood I bet he would be stopped. Would that be considered racist? Or would the cop be suspicious that a white guy out of place in a black neighborhood might be looking to score drugs? And would it be racist to be suspicious of a group of black youths walking down the street together? Even black cops get called racist or Uncle Toms for being suspicious of a group of black youths walking down the street. How are these youths dressed? Are their pants hanging down below their rear end? Do they carry themselves with an apparent attitude? The crime rate among black men is staggering and white crime pales in comparison. Could it be the behavior associated with them that gets them stopped or is it just because they happen to be black or Mexican?
White privilege isn’t the same as racism, which involves using social institutions to carry out systematic discrimination against a racial group. But I’m conscious of both right at the moment, as federal and state budget debates are clearly about whom to advantage — wealthy, mostly white people, or poor people, many of them people of color. For example, two-thirds of the cuts proposed by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan in his Fiscal Year 2012 budget would come from programs that serve low-income people — Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants and low-income housing.
I was in Ryan’s office in Washington, D.C., last week when a man from New Jersey popped in “just to thank the Congressman, because I’m a taxpayer too.” He was white. When a colleague of mine arrived, he had a hard time joining our meeting because a crowd of people dressed up in tea party costumes was jamming the doorway to cheer Ryan on. They were all white.
Three weeks before, I was in the office of a newly elected tea party conservative, and I heard similar accolades about Republican funding cuts —all from white people.
Okay, the main thing Ms. Krome has pointed out was that the majority of taxpayers she witnessed were white. Is that supposed to mean something? White people paying taxes can't be good according to Ms. Krone's logic. It must be unearned. They are just the recipients of unearned privilege. And what about the unearned privilege of receiving government handouts? That doesn't seem to bother Ms. Krone one bit.
At the same time, a large delegation of people working with community action programs was at the Capitol — and I heard no such accolades from them. They understood that the Republican budgets being unleashed particularly target the most vulnerable population in the nation — many of them people of color.
Startling..really? A group of community action leaders (kind of like the ACORN group Obama worked with that was instrumental in the nation wide home foreclosure fiasco where banks were forced to set aside the traditional idea that you get to buy a home if you can afford it and if you don't then you wait - Ahhh yes, but this was so that people of color around the country could have what the allegedly white "privileged" middle class had - a piece of the American dream. Ms. Klone spoke about financial institutions and corporations discriminating against minorities - hogwash! If anything they are throwing their weight behind every so-called disadvantaged minority neighborhood or family they can get their hands on so they don't get called the "R" word! Racist!d So these community leaders were mostly people of color - shocker! And they are working to take even more tax dollars away from the white (and every other) taxpayer.
I was asked at last week’s workshop if I consider myself a racist. Although I benefit from white privilege, I don’t believe I’m racist. But racism is very real in the lives of millions of Americans, and the only way it gets changed is when people who benefit from it work to change the system so that benefits accrue to all or to none. Republican budget proposals are dangerously biased to champion a system that privileges wealthy, mostly white, people. It’s time to recognize these budgets for what they are.
Poor Ms. Krone! She is filled with so much guilt I don't know how she can sleep at night. But since she's clamoring for a change to benefit all (which only works if you don't have a society based on entitlements and everybody works for what they have) then to ease her privileged guilt ridden mind I challenge her to downsize her residence - maybe get rid of it altogether because she probably also buys into the false idea that we stole the land from the Indians. So Ms. Krone sign your home or condo over to the nearest tribe. Send your paycheck each week to that community group that you raved about, and basically get rid of what you have and give it away. You apparently didn't deserve it after all. And I for one could live without your nauseous drivel infecting others who potentially will come down with guilt fever!
Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Senate Refused To Take the Funding from Planned Parenthood
WASHINGTON, D.C., In a 44-56 vote, the U.S. Senate has voted against a budget bill crafted by House Republicans that would have eliminated federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
The Democrat-led Senate also failed to pass its own budget bill, which contained much fewer spending cuts and maintained the abortion giant’s funding.
The vote marks the first stage of what promises to be a drawn-out battle between two opposite visions for the 2011 fiscal year, as well as between pro-life and pro-abortion forces fiercely gunning for or against the amendment de-funding Planned Parenthood.
President Obama has promised to veto the House version as it stands.
Be sure to check out the story below also.
The Democrat-led Senate also failed to pass its own budget bill, which contained much fewer spending cuts and maintained the abortion giant’s funding.
The vote marks the first stage of what promises to be a drawn-out battle between two opposite visions for the 2011 fiscal year, as well as between pro-life and pro-abortion forces fiercely gunning for or against the amendment de-funding Planned Parenthood.
President Obama has promised to veto the House version as it stands.
Be sure to check out the story below also.
Woman charged with Performing her own Late Term Abortion...But That isn't What they are Calling It!
Read the article below and tell me how this is any different than a late term abortion in which the baby is delivered feet first and then while the head is still inside, scissors are stuck into the back of the head cutting the spinal chord to the base of the brain so that the baby can "officially" be declared "aborted" prior to birth. Do a few seconds or minutes really mean the difference between a medical service and murder? And does decapitation by a doctor warrant medical service awards by so-called women's rights groups, but if done by the mother its called murder? And what about those babies born alive, but left in a bucket to die? Does this mean if the baby dies in a bucket in a doctor's office that it is acceptable, but if it dies in a bucket under a woman's sink that it is than murder. Does this mean that the only difference between this story and the stories of thousands of babies who die as a result of late term abortion, is that the woman being charged didn't have a medical license. If a female abortion provider kills her own baby, will she be charged with murder? Hmmm? Something to think about!
Editor's Note: Warning, the contents of this story are graphic
CENTRALIA, Wash. -- A 25-year-old mother has been arrested for allegedly killing her newborn son soon after he was born.
Laura L. Hickey is facing a charge of murder, Lewis County prosecutors said.
The investigation began just before 1 a.m. on March 2 when paramedics were called to Hickey's Centralia home after neighbors heard Hickey call for help, police said.
Hickey was taken to Centralia Providence Hospital where she reported to doctors that she was having a miscarriage, but doctors later determined Hickey had given birth, investigators said.
Police say when Hickey was questioned by hospital staff, she admitted she gave birth and that the child was under the sink in her kitchen.
Medics rushed back to the home and found the body of a baby boy in a container under the sink.
An autopsy later concluded the boy was alive at birth, but had later been decapitated.
Editor's Note: Warning, the contents of this story are graphic
CENTRALIA, Wash. -- A 25-year-old mother has been arrested for allegedly killing her newborn son soon after he was born.
Laura L. Hickey is facing a charge of murder, Lewis County prosecutors said.
The investigation began just before 1 a.m. on March 2 when paramedics were called to Hickey's Centralia home after neighbors heard Hickey call for help, police said.
Hickey was taken to Centralia Providence Hospital where she reported to doctors that she was having a miscarriage, but doctors later determined Hickey had given birth, investigators said.
Police say when Hickey was questioned by hospital staff, she admitted she gave birth and that the child was under the sink in her kitchen.
Medics rushed back to the home and found the body of a baby boy in a container under the sink.
An autopsy later concluded the boy was alive at birth, but had later been decapitated.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
ABC to Pilot "Good Christian Bitches" TV Show
The American Family Association is taking exception to a pilot for a new series on ABC.
The pilot, called "Good Christian B*tches," is based on a novel by the same name and centers on life of a "reformed" woman who returns to her hometown where she become the target of malicious gossip from women in the Christian community. Media reports say both religious and women's groups are "up in arms" over the show's title.
One of those groups is the American Family Association. The very title of the show displays bigotry and a lack of sensitivity, says AFA president Tim Wildmon.
"ABC Television Network has announced plans to produce a show called 'Good Christian [blank]' -- and it's a word that rhymes with 'witches', which I can't say," notes the pro-family leader. "And isn't it ironic that we have...a program on ABC Television [that] you can't even say the title of without offending people."
It is time, says Wildmon, for Christians to fight back. "This program would never be even considered by ABC if it were [called] 'Good Muslim blank' or 'Good Jewish blank' -- so it again proves the point that it's open season on Christians," he laments. "Any other group is protected, but Christians are not. Christians are, in fact, a target for Hollywood."
The American Family Association is encouraging people to call their local ABC affiliates and "strongly urge them not to broadcast this toxic waste."
AFA also warns that, if necessary, it will also promote a boycott of the show's advertisers. The pro-family group argues that the show title alone is extremely offensive to the millions of people around the country who hold dear their Christian faith.
The pilot, called "Good Christian B*tches," is based on a novel by the same name and centers on life of a "reformed" woman who returns to her hometown where she become the target of malicious gossip from women in the Christian community. Media reports say both religious and women's groups are "up in arms" over the show's title.
One of those groups is the American Family Association. The very title of the show displays bigotry and a lack of sensitivity, says AFA president Tim Wildmon.
"ABC Television Network has announced plans to produce a show called 'Good Christian [blank]' -- and it's a word that rhymes with 'witches', which I can't say," notes the pro-family leader. "And isn't it ironic that we have...a program on ABC Television [that] you can't even say the title of without offending people."
It is time, says Wildmon, for Christians to fight back. "This program would never be even considered by ABC if it were [called] 'Good Muslim blank' or 'Good Jewish blank' -- so it again proves the point that it's open season on Christians," he laments. "Any other group is protected, but Christians are not. Christians are, in fact, a target for Hollywood."
The American Family Association is encouraging people to call their local ABC affiliates and "strongly urge them not to broadcast this toxic waste."
AFA also warns that, if necessary, it will also promote a boycott of the show's advertisers. The pro-family group argues that the show title alone is extremely offensive to the millions of people around the country who hold dear their Christian faith.
Pro-Choice Terrorist Arrested
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 3, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – New information has come to light that Theodore Shulman, a self-described “pro-choice terrorist” who was arrested last week by federal agents in a possible connection to death threats against pro-life leaders, has four siblings that were aborted by his mother, a feminist authoress and political activist.
Theodore Shulman's mother, feminist activist Alix Kates Shulman, has said that she had four deliberate abortions. AOL’s Politics Daily reports that Shulman, 49, charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a case under seal, is the son of feminist activist Alix Kates Shulman. His mother wrote the 1972 sex-novel Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen and has stated that each of her four abortions were deliberate – “not one was the result of carelessness.”
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek says that Theodore has spoken of his aborted siblings, saying his mother aborted two unborn children before his birth, and then aborted two more afterward.
According to Politics Daily, Shulman liked to style himself as the “first pro-choice terrorist” and even had a blog called “Operation Counterstrike.” His mission statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it.”
His targets included Stanek; Robert P. George, Princeton philosopher; Priests for Life founder, Fr. Frank Pavone; Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries; pro-life scientist Gerard Nadal, and others.
Politics Daily reports that Stanek had compiled 4,000 comments over four years that Shulman had posted on Stanek’s blog, including this one: “I’m looking forward to watching a documentary entitled ‘The Assassination of Jill Stanek.’”
Theodore Shulman, 49, has frequently harassed Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger, recently threatening in a voice mail that Sullenger should “convert” to pro-choice “during the few months you have left on this earth,” or else “you will go to hell and burn.”
Upon the death of pro-life leader Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Shulman wrote, “Unfortunately, he died in his bed. He was not killed by a pro-choice counterterrorist. Too bad, he would have been a most effective target.”
Shulman is charged with communicating interstate threats against two pro-lifers and is currently being held without bond at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, a Federal holding facility.
Although the complaint against Shulman was filed under seal, Operation Rescue says they have been informed that the case involved two pro-life activists who are simply referred to as Victim 1 and Victim 2 in order to protect their safety.
Shulman is also the object of a Federal investigation in Wichita, Kansas, which could result in additional charges being filed against him for making serious death threats against Operation Rescue staff members.
Theodore Shulman's mother, feminist activist Alix Kates Shulman, has said that she had four deliberate abortions. AOL’s Politics Daily reports that Shulman, 49, charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a case under seal, is the son of feminist activist Alix Kates Shulman. His mother wrote the 1972 sex-novel Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen and has stated that each of her four abortions were deliberate – “not one was the result of carelessness.”
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek says that Theodore has spoken of his aborted siblings, saying his mother aborted two unborn children before his birth, and then aborted two more afterward.
According to Politics Daily, Shulman liked to style himself as the “first pro-choice terrorist” and even had a blog called “Operation Counterstrike.” His mission statement was: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it.”
His targets included Stanek; Robert P. George, Princeton philosopher; Priests for Life founder, Fr. Frank Pavone; Bryan Kemper of Stand True Ministries; pro-life scientist Gerard Nadal, and others.
Politics Daily reports that Stanek had compiled 4,000 comments over four years that Shulman had posted on Stanek’s blog, including this one: “I’m looking forward to watching a documentary entitled ‘The Assassination of Jill Stanek.’”
Theodore Shulman, 49, has frequently harassed Operation Rescue’s Cheryl Sullenger, recently threatening in a voice mail that Sullenger should “convert” to pro-choice “during the few months you have left on this earth,” or else “you will go to hell and burn.”
Upon the death of pro-life leader Dr. Bernard Nathanson, Shulman wrote, “Unfortunately, he died in his bed. He was not killed by a pro-choice counterterrorist. Too bad, he would have been a most effective target.”
Shulman is charged with communicating interstate threats against two pro-lifers and is currently being held without bond at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, a Federal holding facility.
Although the complaint against Shulman was filed under seal, Operation Rescue says they have been informed that the case involved two pro-life activists who are simply referred to as Victim 1 and Victim 2 in order to protect their safety.
Shulman is also the object of a Federal investigation in Wichita, Kansas, which could result in additional charges being filed against him for making serious death threats against Operation Rescue staff members.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Congresswoman Gifford, Words, Warnings, and Pleas!
Every political season I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle refer to, "Battleground states." I hear reporters and news desk anchors talk about the, "Battleground." Politics is war in the time of peace. Do you agree? Though many would argue as to whether or not we are living in a time of peace, we are not living in a nation occupied by a foreign army. Yes, it is true that it has been said many times and by many people that they are waging war on white America via the migratory invasion of this land, but leaving that aside, my point is for all intents and purposes we are living in relative peace in the U.S. Politics then is the means by which factions of different opinion wage war.
War may be waged for selfish motives, or it may be waged for honorable reasons. Personally, I believe, and not because I am a woman or a pacifist (yes I am the former, no I am not the latter) no war that is waged is just. That meaning that I believe the aggressor is almost always in the wrong. Sometimes the aggressor is actually on the defense and it takes keen historical knowledge to know who was indeed the aggressor and who was taking a defensive stance. For example, the American Revolution is a misnomer, because it was not a military revolution! The U.S. had acted under its own power and legislative body for some time and did NOT fire the first shot. The American war was a war of national self-defense!
There is an ideological war that has been waged upon white Christian America. Read my other posts for more info on that. And "battleground" rhetoric is used. I hear it from the left wing and the right wing. I hear it from Conservatives and I hear it from liberals. I was raised in a family that was and is acutely aware of the proper and improper use of language. The Bible says not to even give the appearance of evil. I believe that implies to the use of your language and political rhetoric as well.
Below is a quote by George Orwell that I especially like.
One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time, one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin where it belongs. ~George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," Shooting an Elephant, 1950
To my white nationalist friends, Christian conservatives, Tea Party members, and the many liberals I know who really are fine decent people but just don't understand the proper role of government, let me remind you that you have a responsibility to police your own language and to be an example to others.
Take for instance Sarah Palin. There are things I like about her and things I don't. I think she is very smart and savvy and despite what some may say, she carries a lot of clout. When she made the, "lock and reload" comment on her Facebook page, I thought to myself that she just doesn't get it. She was using simple metaphorical political/war language and was totally naive in her usage of it. The media is going to pounce on her for that. The same for the cross hairs on the different states. It was taken out of context and now with the terrible shooting in Arizona, many are trying to make Sarah Palin out to be in some way responsible. Even though the shooter had no political ties to anyone, we are seeing Sarah Palin's face and Tea Party rally footage pop up all over the television as reports are made about the extremism in America. Hillary Clinton spoke about the extremism in America during her visit to Yemen.
However if we really want to speculate about political leanings check this out. According to an article written by Ruben Navarrette Jr. who is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator, and a CNN.com contributor (hardly the media bastion of the right wing) there is more to the story.
"Caitie Parker, who said she knows Loughner from high school and college, tweeted: "He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was 'stupid & unintelligent.' She later added in another tweet, 'As I knew him, he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.' "
And although Giffords was a Democrat, she actually sided with two of the most important issues of the right wing, Christian conservatives, white nationalists, evangelicals, Tea Partiers, etc. She was a firm defendant of the 2nd Amendment and of Arizona's recent stance toward illegal immigration.
After U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton struck down much of SB 1070, Arizona's immigration law, Giffords issued a statement insisting that the law had been passed "because we were fed up with years of federal inaction and neglect."
And then we have the folks who keep bringing up the "Second Amendment Remedy" comments attributed to a tough campaign in Nevada. The thought process goes that somehow this must be a low key suggestion to start shooting politicians that aren't liked. How absurd!
Let's look at some left-wing rhetoric brought to readers' attention in a post at the Urban Politico.
"How about the woman that said Palin should be "gang-raped by my big black brothers." This was said by comedian Sandra Berhnhardt.
How about the lefties thwarted by one of their own before they could blow up the 2008GOP convention?
How bout the lefty that strapped a bomb on his chest and tried to blow up the Discovery channel building?
How about the union thugs that beat up the black TP'er?
How about the Dem political maps with targets and/or bulls eyes on them that take all of 3 minutes to find on the internet?
This guy is described by his old friends as a 'lefty pothead.' He attended one of Gifford's rallies in 2007 as a supporter and was mad at her since then. He describes the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books. His President tells him to bring a gun to a knife fight and you think the '2nd Amendment remedies' people, ie. Palin/Limbaugh/TP'ers, are to blame.
Guy Cimbalo took it a little further, in a 2009 Playboy article titled, "The Top Ten Republican Women I'd Most Like to Hate Fxxk"
"But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f*ck. We may despise everything these women represent, but godd*mmit they're hot. Let the healing begin."
Now, here is my lesson for you, my white nationalist friends, Tea Partiers, etc. and then I'll close with a word of warning for the honestly undecided...again a reminder of the lesson.
Okay, here it is. Don't be stupid! For 99.9% of you out there, this is a no-brainer. But even many otherwise intelligent people just don't get it. Words have consequences. Now, don't throw me under the bus with an, "ahh but we're all responsible for our own actions" statement. No duh! Those aren't the consequences I am referring to.
I don't believe for one tiny instant that Sarah Palin's lock and reload comment, Sharon Angler's 2nd Amendment remedy comment, or any battleground state talk, cross hairs, or target lists had anything to do with the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford, the little girl, the elderly, the judge, or any of the others shot in Tuscon. (By the way, this is where I was born and I still have lots of family in Tuscon) I absolutely don't believe it at all! The shooter was by all accounts a druggie, Commie loving, loser. But I will even be fair and say that he may have been none of those things. He may have just been a mentally impaired schizophrenic. But whatever he was, he wasn't leaning toward the right!
Now, to the consequences. The consequences of the cross hairs, the reload comments, etc. was not the shooting in Tuscon, it is the political aftermath that has followed.
I don't care how innocent you meant it. I don't care how unrelated a comment, a picture, a cartoon, etc. is to a violent incident, you will get blamed! There are consequences to you and to our cause. A smart man or woman always thinks before they speak. The Bible says a soft word turns away much wrath. That is why I actually have people of other racial backgrounds and liberals write to me to say that they may not agree with everything said and all points made, but they proceeded to listen because I said it in kindness. My kindness reflects upon my Christian faith and upon my American idealism and it is good practice for all who choose to live civilized lives. This has far reaching implications for addressing those of greatest concern to me...my white brothers and sisters.
You see my friends, as white Christians concerned with our nation and the world, it is truly not our desire to destroy everyone else. Our desire is to preserve our people, our traditions, our values, our Christian faith, and our Biblically based Constitutional form of government. White compassionate rulership is a benefit to all races and not to ours alone.
Yes, there is a war, but it is not a war we have started. Now, in the discussion of language, let me say that I could have ended that by saying, "but it is a war we intend to finish." In my mind, were I to say that, I would not mean to imply that we are to take up guns and go to overthrow those we believe are destroying our race, faith, and nation. But what if someone read it that way, there are crazies out there in all political spectrums and we must be intelligent about we say. But even then, given that everyone I know would have known in what context that statement was to be taken, how would it be taken and manipulated by those who hate us. That is the terrible consequence to our mission. You hurt the ones you love by irresponsible things you say.
The white nationalist, Constitution loving, community is based on compassion for our people. We must never lose sight of that. We must not allow those who wish to tear asunder the Christian fabric of this nation to paint us as the evil doers, as the violent, or as the haters. We are none of those things!
You may say to yourself that it doesn't matter as long as we know we are not those things. Yes, but it does! We are reaching out to future generations. We are reaching out to those who have an instinct for racial survival, but haven't made a decision as to whether or not they will work and fight for it. We have a responsibility to our people to conduct our selves honorably in our actions and our speech because the consequences to our people is too great not to.
I will remind you that the Bible says that the church was built on the blood of the saints. The Christian church began to grow after the blood lust grew to be too much and the early Christians could truly say, we are blameless. That must be our motto as well. We are blameless!
And a final note to the undecided or those well meaning liberals. Let us be reminded that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment. And though she is Jewish (as was the shooter who reportedly was a member of the same synagogue) the 2nd Amendment is supported by many people of different racial groups, although for the most part Jews overwhelming oppose it. But in this instance, this Jewish woman supported it and I believe Congresswoman Gifford would object to using this massacre as a political weapon to disarm good and decent citizens of the U.S. The truth is that though many valiantly stood up and fought bravely to save lives during the insane shooting spree, more lives would possibly have been saved had an armed citizenry shot the mad man dead at the scene the very first time the trigger was pulled.
Many men and women in the U.S. armed forces as well as the law enforcement community can attest to the established fact that more guns in the routine and daily possession of law abiding citizens leads to a decrease in crime and violent death. Legislation can’t stop the evil in the heart of a man,(Note: this does not mean you can't legislate on behalf of morality, but this too is another lesson in negative versus postive law) and it is for this reason that no one should ever be deterred from using the most effective means of defending themselves, their loved ones, their friends, or neighbors.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the citizens of Arizona.
The map below appears on the page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). The next map shows red targets representing a “Targeted Republican.” on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website starting in Feb. 23, 2010. These maps are not provided to show that they did it so its okay for others. Again, the point is that traditional American's are held up to a tougher standard by the national media and those with an agenda. Not fair, but thats the way it is. We must always take into consideration that the "spin" is not on our side. Work smarter and don't follow the game plan of the New Age Socialists. The ball is in their court and we must remember that. But don't lose hope! God shall not forsake us!
War may be waged for selfish motives, or it may be waged for honorable reasons. Personally, I believe, and not because I am a woman or a pacifist (yes I am the former, no I am not the latter) no war that is waged is just. That meaning that I believe the aggressor is almost always in the wrong. Sometimes the aggressor is actually on the defense and it takes keen historical knowledge to know who was indeed the aggressor and who was taking a defensive stance. For example, the American Revolution is a misnomer, because it was not a military revolution! The U.S. had acted under its own power and legislative body for some time and did NOT fire the first shot. The American war was a war of national self-defense!
There is an ideological war that has been waged upon white Christian America. Read my other posts for more info on that. And "battleground" rhetoric is used. I hear it from the left wing and the right wing. I hear it from Conservatives and I hear it from liberals. I was raised in a family that was and is acutely aware of the proper and improper use of language. The Bible says not to even give the appearance of evil. I believe that implies to the use of your language and political rhetoric as well.
Below is a quote by George Orwell that I especially like.
One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time, one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin where it belongs. ~George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," Shooting an Elephant, 1950
To my white nationalist friends, Christian conservatives, Tea Party members, and the many liberals I know who really are fine decent people but just don't understand the proper role of government, let me remind you that you have a responsibility to police your own language and to be an example to others.
Take for instance Sarah Palin. There are things I like about her and things I don't. I think she is very smart and savvy and despite what some may say, she carries a lot of clout. When she made the, "lock and reload" comment on her Facebook page, I thought to myself that she just doesn't get it. She was using simple metaphorical political/war language and was totally naive in her usage of it. The media is going to pounce on her for that. The same for the cross hairs on the different states. It was taken out of context and now with the terrible shooting in Arizona, many are trying to make Sarah Palin out to be in some way responsible. Even though the shooter had no political ties to anyone, we are seeing Sarah Palin's face and Tea Party rally footage pop up all over the television as reports are made about the extremism in America. Hillary Clinton spoke about the extremism in America during her visit to Yemen.
However if we really want to speculate about political leanings check this out. According to an article written by Ruben Navarrette Jr. who is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator, and a CNN.com contributor (hardly the media bastion of the right wing) there is more to the story.
"Caitie Parker, who said she knows Loughner from high school and college, tweeted: "He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was 'stupid & unintelligent.' She later added in another tweet, 'As I knew him, he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.' "
And although Giffords was a Democrat, she actually sided with two of the most important issues of the right wing, Christian conservatives, white nationalists, evangelicals, Tea Partiers, etc. She was a firm defendant of the 2nd Amendment and of Arizona's recent stance toward illegal immigration.
After U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton struck down much of SB 1070, Arizona's immigration law, Giffords issued a statement insisting that the law had been passed "because we were fed up with years of federal inaction and neglect."
And then we have the folks who keep bringing up the "Second Amendment Remedy" comments attributed to a tough campaign in Nevada. The thought process goes that somehow this must be a low key suggestion to start shooting politicians that aren't liked. How absurd!
Let's look at some left-wing rhetoric brought to readers' attention in a post at the Urban Politico.
"How about the woman that said Palin should be "gang-raped by my big black brothers." This was said by comedian Sandra Berhnhardt.
How about the lefties thwarted by one of their own before they could blow up the 2008GOP convention?
How bout the lefty that strapped a bomb on his chest and tried to blow up the Discovery channel building?
How about the union thugs that beat up the black TP'er?
How about the Dem political maps with targets and/or bulls eyes on them that take all of 3 minutes to find on the internet?
This guy is described by his old friends as a 'lefty pothead.' He attended one of Gifford's rallies in 2007 as a supporter and was mad at her since then. He describes the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books. His President tells him to bring a gun to a knife fight and you think the '2nd Amendment remedies' people, ie. Palin/Limbaugh/TP'ers, are to blame.
Guy Cimbalo took it a little further, in a 2009 Playboy article titled, "The Top Ten Republican Women I'd Most Like to Hate Fxxk"
"But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f*ck. We may despise everything these women represent, but godd*mmit they're hot. Let the healing begin."
Now, here is my lesson for you, my white nationalist friends, Tea Partiers, etc. and then I'll close with a word of warning for the honestly undecided...again a reminder of the lesson.
Okay, here it is. Don't be stupid! For 99.9% of you out there, this is a no-brainer. But even many otherwise intelligent people just don't get it. Words have consequences. Now, don't throw me under the bus with an, "ahh but we're all responsible for our own actions" statement. No duh! Those aren't the consequences I am referring to.
I don't believe for one tiny instant that Sarah Palin's lock and reload comment, Sharon Angler's 2nd Amendment remedy comment, or any battleground state talk, cross hairs, or target lists had anything to do with the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford, the little girl, the elderly, the judge, or any of the others shot in Tuscon. (By the way, this is where I was born and I still have lots of family in Tuscon) I absolutely don't believe it at all! The shooter was by all accounts a druggie, Commie loving, loser. But I will even be fair and say that he may have been none of those things. He may have just been a mentally impaired schizophrenic. But whatever he was, he wasn't leaning toward the right!
Now, to the consequences. The consequences of the cross hairs, the reload comments, etc. was not the shooting in Tuscon, it is the political aftermath that has followed.
I don't care how innocent you meant it. I don't care how unrelated a comment, a picture, a cartoon, etc. is to a violent incident, you will get blamed! There are consequences to you and to our cause. A smart man or woman always thinks before they speak. The Bible says a soft word turns away much wrath. That is why I actually have people of other racial backgrounds and liberals write to me to say that they may not agree with everything said and all points made, but they proceeded to listen because I said it in kindness. My kindness reflects upon my Christian faith and upon my American idealism and it is good practice for all who choose to live civilized lives. This has far reaching implications for addressing those of greatest concern to me...my white brothers and sisters.
You see my friends, as white Christians concerned with our nation and the world, it is truly not our desire to destroy everyone else. Our desire is to preserve our people, our traditions, our values, our Christian faith, and our Biblically based Constitutional form of government. White compassionate rulership is a benefit to all races and not to ours alone.
Yes, there is a war, but it is not a war we have started. Now, in the discussion of language, let me say that I could have ended that by saying, "but it is a war we intend to finish." In my mind, were I to say that, I would not mean to imply that we are to take up guns and go to overthrow those we believe are destroying our race, faith, and nation. But what if someone read it that way, there are crazies out there in all political spectrums and we must be intelligent about we say. But even then, given that everyone I know would have known in what context that statement was to be taken, how would it be taken and manipulated by those who hate us. That is the terrible consequence to our mission. You hurt the ones you love by irresponsible things you say.
The white nationalist, Constitution loving, community is based on compassion for our people. We must never lose sight of that. We must not allow those who wish to tear asunder the Christian fabric of this nation to paint us as the evil doers, as the violent, or as the haters. We are none of those things!
You may say to yourself that it doesn't matter as long as we know we are not those things. Yes, but it does! We are reaching out to future generations. We are reaching out to those who have an instinct for racial survival, but haven't made a decision as to whether or not they will work and fight for it. We have a responsibility to our people to conduct our selves honorably in our actions and our speech because the consequences to our people is too great not to.
I will remind you that the Bible says that the church was built on the blood of the saints. The Christian church began to grow after the blood lust grew to be too much and the early Christians could truly say, we are blameless. That must be our motto as well. We are blameless!
And a final note to the undecided or those well meaning liberals. Let us be reminded that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment. And though she is Jewish (as was the shooter who reportedly was a member of the same synagogue) the 2nd Amendment is supported by many people of different racial groups, although for the most part Jews overwhelming oppose it. But in this instance, this Jewish woman supported it and I believe Congresswoman Gifford would object to using this massacre as a political weapon to disarm good and decent citizens of the U.S. The truth is that though many valiantly stood up and fought bravely to save lives during the insane shooting spree, more lives would possibly have been saved had an armed citizenry shot the mad man dead at the scene the very first time the trigger was pulled.
Many men and women in the U.S. armed forces as well as the law enforcement community can attest to the established fact that more guns in the routine and daily possession of law abiding citizens leads to a decrease in crime and violent death. Legislation can’t stop the evil in the heart of a man,(Note: this does not mean you can't legislate on behalf of morality, but this too is another lesson in negative versus postive law) and it is for this reason that no one should ever be deterred from using the most effective means of defending themselves, their loved ones, their friends, or neighbors.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the citizens of Arizona.
The map below appears on the page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). The next map shows red targets representing a “Targeted Republican.” on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website starting in Feb. 23, 2010. These maps are not provided to show that they did it so its okay for others. Again, the point is that traditional American's are held up to a tougher standard by the national media and those with an agenda. Not fair, but thats the way it is. We must always take into consideration that the "spin" is not on our side. Work smarter and don't follow the game plan of the New Age Socialists. The ball is in their court and we must remember that. But don't lose hope! God shall not forsake us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
