My Pet Rant of All Time--Abortion

My pet rant is probably, to me, the most heinous thing in the world and to me, demonstrates exactly what we're fighting for in the way of VICTORY against liberals and defeatists. That rant is abortion, followed closely by euthansia.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about a woman's right to choose? My response is when an unborn child has a right to choose, then so will a woman.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about in cases of rape? My response is that child, while a product of a violent act, did not choose his or her existence. He or she didn't cause the rape and didn't ask to be brought into this world as a result of a violent act. Therefore, he or she has just as much right to life as the rest of us. If the child is too heartwrenching a reminder, place the child for adoption with a loving family.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about in cases of incest? See above.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what if it's not convenient for the mother to have a child at this point in her life? My response is, then she shouldn't have lain down and opened her legs.

But, Miss Beth, you say what about when continuing the pregnancy is a danger to the mother? That's a little more complicated. However, there have been many instances where a continuing pregnancy was "dangerous" to the mother and both mother and child have lived.

But, Miss Beth, what if the mother is an uneducated teenager and the child interferes with the rest of the mother's life and her future opportunities? There are many schools designed for teenage mothers, teaching them how to be good mothers and continue their education. Again, if the child is truly a "hinderance" to the mother, 1) she shouldn't have lain down and opened her legs and 2) place the child for adoption with a loving family.

The truth is we could go on for days with "But, Miss Beth, what if...".

The truth is abortion is murder, pure and simple. A capital crime. An ending to a life.

We hear so much on the liberal left against capital punishment. I'd like to pose a question: If there are so many against capital punishment, for those who have been properly tried and convicted, why then, are they for abortion against an innocent life that has not been tried and convicted?

And the most horrific, the most heinous of these procedures is partial birth abortion.

For those not familiar with this, let me describe. It involves the mother going into labor, or being induced into labor. The child is turned around so he or she is born "breech". The entire body is delivered and just before the head is fully presented and before the child takes his or her first breath, the base of his or her skull is punctured and the brains sucked out. Then the rest of the child is delivered and often placed into a "dying room" to let the child die on their own.

Thankfully, Congress continues its ban on these horrific murders. However, possibly not for long. Not with San Fran Nan in charge. And not with everybody's beloved poster boy, Bill Clinton, lurking in the background. Clinton, who tried to have the ban lifted, was overridden by Congress. Thank GOD Congress showed some spine then!

In a recent issue of Time, there was a significant article regarding crisis pregnancy centers. They provide counseling, help, clothing, find pre-natal care, etc. for women. Planned Parenthood, the biggest slaughterhouse in the country, was boo-hooing becazuse these centers aren't "playing fair". Just what are the crisis centers doing that PP doesn't consider fair? They're showing these women in crisis their children on sonograms. These women see their children moving, breathing, engaging in LIFE. And PP doesn't think that's fair. Why? Because these mothers often choose to give their children life after seeing them on the sonogram. TOO BAD FOR PP!!!

I APPLAUD the crisis centers for crusading to end abortions, for showing women there are numerous options for their unborn children, for helping these women--in short, for trying to stop the slaughter.

Now, there's "Exhale" that provides "e-cards" for women who have had a "procedure". Sounds like they're just getting a tooth pulled instead of committing murder. Something warm and fuzzy to make the would-have-been mother/murderer "feel better" about her "decision" rather than forcing her to face the consequences of murder and not just murder, but murder of her own child. How disgusting can you get?

People on the left are more concerned with the spotted owl and clubbing seals than they are with children. Taking that one step further, your teenage daughter can have an abortion without your permission yet needs your permission for a tattoo or piercing. Where are their priorities?

The Supreme Court decision giving women the "right" to a legal abortion, the "right" to commit murder with impunity, was wrong. It's yet another instance of the court trying to legislate in a moral and religious arena. Look at the blood on the justice's hands--not just the deciding justices but all the justices since then who have upheld that decision.

Sphere: Related Content

Immigration-Legal and Otherwise (HT: Greg)

Another subject extremely relevant to today's America--Immigration, legal and otherwise. Folks, I'm the product of immigrants and proud of it. They came through Ellis Island and pioneered through Oklahoma and Colorado. The stories my great-grandparents told were incredible. Their strength and fortitude in laying down roots is something a lot of us have forgotten in today's "easy" world and everything we take for granted.

One thing that was different about these early immigrants was the fact they ASSIMILATED into their adopted country, the United States. They gave up their native languages for English; they fought in the wars as Americans; the flags they waved were American. They didn't ask for concessions and demand the United States accomodate them. THEY BECAME AMERICANS.

I have a few friends that are recently sworn in citizens as well. Their take on the "new breed" of immigrants? Well, let's just say I've seen my cats fight nicer. The new citizens are PROUD of America, PROUD to be AMERICAN, they have children serving in the Armed Forces and they have NO PATIENCE and NO SYMPATHY for those that come here illegally, those that refuse to assimilate into this country and demand accomodations for their needs rather than become full-fledged Americans. My hat is off to these new citizens who are excited to vote for the first time and who are in direct opposition to the illegals.
=============================================
Immigration has played an important role in American history, and the United States continues to have the most open immigration policy in the world. Before the era of rapid communications and transportation, America encouraged relatively open immigration to settle its empty lands. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared the regulation of immigration a federal responsibility. The Immigration Service was established in 1891 to deal with the big increase in immigration which started in 1880.

The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war's conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system, passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.

There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent.

In 1965, Congress replaced the national origins system with a preference system designed to unite immigrant families and attract skilled immigrants to the United States. This change to national policy responded to changes in the sources of immigration since 1924. The majority of applicants for immigration visas now came from Asia and Latin America rather than Europe. The preference system continued to limit the number of immigration visas available each year, however, and Congress still responded to refugees with special legislation. Not until the Refugee Act of 1980 did the United States have a general policy governing the admission of refugees.

Legal immigration alone in the 1990s likely matched or exceeded the previous historical peak decade of 1901-1910, when 8.8 million legal immigrants were admitted. Adding the settlement of illegal aliens makes the 1990s without doubt the period of greatest immigration in America's history.

Publications:

The Politics of Labor Scarcity: Expediency and the Birth of the Agricultural"Guestworkers" Program by Cindy HahamovitchCenter for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, December 1999

"Immigrant Indigestion": A. Philip Randolph, Radical and Restrictionist by Daryl Scott ((held the Center's 1998-99 Fellowship in Immigration Studies)Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, June 1999

"Cast Down Your Bucket Where You Are": Black Americans on Immigration by Robert MalloyCenter for Immigration Studies Paper No. 10, June 1996

Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration ActCenter for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, September 1995

Other links:

BCIS history page

Census Bureau paper on "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990"

Sphere: Related Content

Continuation of the UN Topic (HT "Dean")

My friend Dean contributed this as a comment in my previous post. I think it's important enough to bring to the front page.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men." Cicero - Speech to the Roman SenateMore

More Americans are coming to the chilling realization that U.S. membership in the United Nations poses a very real threat to our survival as a free and independent nation. Here are some good reasons to be concerned:

1. The UN's basic philosophy is both anti-American and pro-totalitarian. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self-evident" truth that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN ignores God's existence, implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power "as provided by law" to cancel them out of existence. If any government can place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms.

2. The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal was a socialist world government. Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped the policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip Dru: Administrator, called for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx ..." The CFR was an early promoter of the UN, and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the UN founding conference were or would become CFR members.

3. The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General by Norwegian socialist Trygve Lie, Swedish socialist Dag Hammarskjold, Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim, Peruvian socialist Javier Perez deCuellar, and Egyptian socialist Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First International headed by Karl Marx) today claims tens of millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government ... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal ..." Almost all of the UN's "independent" commissions for the last thirty years have been headed by members of the Socialist International.

4. The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children ... the world. Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated). These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a world government with the power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and control the human race all, of course, under the banner of "protecting the environment." In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a 20-year, $17 billion plan to "stabilize" the world's population. The UN's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, sterilization, and controlled human breeding. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child also claims power not only to grant rights but also to cancel them "as provided by law." It claims that governments must guarantee children "freedom of expression ... freedom to seek, receive, and impart information ... freedom of thought, conscience, and religion," regardless of the wishes of their parents.

5. The UN Charter outlines the path to world tyranny. After giving lip service about not intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...," the UN Charter continues, "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to "be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.

6. The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN Security Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN "peacekeeping" capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made available to the UN "on a permanent basis." It ominously warns, "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed" and proceeds to name a long list of "risks for stability" that would be used to justify use of the "permanent" UN army to enforce its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using America's military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elsewhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops. When 15 Americans were killed over Iraq in mid-1994, Vice-President Gore extended condolences "to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations." Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army. This policy concludes: "progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to the point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." (See State Department publication 7277: Freedom From War.)

7. The UN doesn't settle disputes - it makes them worse! Our ambassador to the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, "The UN has become an arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have become involved in." Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or Barbados have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the opposite side of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades, bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed - as required by the UN). The UN "peacekeeping mission" in Somalia cost the lives of another 36 Americans in 1993.

8. The UN ignores Communist atrocities but targets non-Communist nations and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets were butchering civilians in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing! But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace" in the 1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

9. The UN embraces Communist China - history's most murderous criminal regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN's founding members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971, the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese government - a government responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting Red China was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

10. The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts and fat cats. In 1993, the UN Economic and Social Council granted consultant status to the International Gay and Lesbian Association which includes the North American Man/Boy Love Association (advocates of child molestation) and the Dutch group Vereniging Martijn (which also promotes use of children as sex objects). In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) official was one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives. Fat cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and some receive subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that "pampered and cosseted staffs" of various aid agencies "absorb 80% of all UN expenditures."

11. America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid" funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend "to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own."

12. The UN is a war organization, NOT a peace organization. Article 42 of the UN Charter claims authority to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." But the UN definition of "peace" is never given. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have defined "peace" as the absence of all opposition. To achieve "peace" in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private homes. Katanga was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has never been, a peace organization. It will use whatever military power it is given to force all nations of the world to submit

March 18, 2007 8:32 PM

Sphere: Related Content

The Age of the EAGLE Has Begun...

From the Gathering of Eagles website, written by Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality:

The Age Of The Eagle

March 18th, 2007 Category: Uncategorized

By Kit Jarrell of Euphoric Reality

In every life there are moments that define us. They tell us in no uncertain terms who we are, what we believe in our souls, and what we are willing to die for.

For those of us who have worn the uniform of our great nation, these moments have stirred in our hearts before–often misunderstood by those who could never understand what it means to pledge your very life to protect another.

But even more rare is the moment that lets us define ourselves, that lets us show the world who we are, what we believe in our souls…and what we are still willing to die for.

March 17, 2007 will be remembered as one of those moments.

Yesterday, in the mud and the freezing cold, 30,000 Americans stood proudly and said with one voice, “This is what we will die for.”

Yesterday, a lone veteran planted his message of support for our troops in the heart of the domestic enemy and said with all his heart, “I will not be moved.”

Yesterday, a row of my brothers stood guard over a long granite list of over 58,000 reasons why my own service was peaceful.

Yesterday, we defined ourselves and our nation to the world.

We are not the swansong of a dying ideal. We are a proud remnant; we are the ones who remember all too well that the price of freedom is blood. We have seen our brothers, our fathers, our sons, and our friends come home in a box draped in color. We refuse to allow their sacrifice be in vain, or scorned by the very recipients of that sweet, precious gift.

The age of the coward and the twilight of the silent are over. The age of the eagle has begun.

Support our EAGLES--past, present and future. We owe them every last inch of freedom we have, every free breath we take in this truly great nation UNDER GOD.

Sphere: Related Content

Update on Impeach for Peace Treasonists

It took Mr. Rudolph two emails to say this to me (one email each):

"As always, I can count on you to position yourself the victim"

and

"You are incapable of intellectual honesty."

Interesting take on his part, particularly since I simply quoted him and laid out the facts. Again, amazing how, by forcing these people to look in the mirror at their own actions, faced with their own words, I am suddenly dishonest and positioning myself as a victim.

Laughable really.

Oh, did I happen to mention Mr. Rudolph is the "proud" founder of "World Can't Wait" that was so wonderfully UNDER-REPRESENTED at today's "anti-war protest"--the Gathering of Eagles OUTNUMBERED the protesters by one count of 4 to 1. Further, because of these proud Eagles, not one burned out, hippie wannabe, sheehanista had the balls or the guts to get violent and try to desecrate any of the memorials. These wannabes have plenty of "mouth-off" power, but when it comes to REAL courage to stand for their convictions, they just don't have it.

THANK YOU EAGLES---YOU PROTECTED US WITH YOUR SERVICE, YOU PROTECT US TODAY AND YOU PROTECT THE MEMORIALS AS A LEGACY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Sphere: Related Content