STOP FEMA CAMP and GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION NOW!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)


Pay ATTENTION, The target is the US Constitution and anyone who fights to preserve the Document that speaks loud and clear to preserve TRUTH, Justice, Liberty, and the American way. Anyone who agrees with our Founding Fathers will be labeled and profiled a terrorist. NO kidding. Not a Conspiracy but a coming reality if you the AMERICAN do not take action to preserve your liberty.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” -Edward Abbey

ACTION ALERT - STOP FEMA CAMP and GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION NOW!



So sad America as we knew it from the past and this present will be destroyed if Americans do not stand up for our Constitution and morality. That means Repent to the the one who is Sovereign right now, The KING OF KINGS who sits at the right hand of the Father. JESUS. Let us truly humble ourselves and PRAY and Ask for mercy for our Nation and our leaders souls who are in rebellion against OUR Creator.
May he spare us with his mercy still.

Matthew 6:33
But seek ( aim at and strive after) first of all His kingdom and His righteousness ( His way of doing and being right), and then all these things taken together will be given you besides.

RW

The Super Bowl Commercial purposely axed from view.

It is time to go to WAR with the Immorally biased MEDIA and NETWORKS who continue to trodden down our Constitution, THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
AMERICAN STEP UP TO THE PLATE WILL YOU?

WHAT NBC STRUCK FROM THE SUPERBOWL ADS. And the Network giants and advocates of the liberal confusion want a fairness doctrine?



The Super Bowl Commercial You Won't See Onenewsnow.com

That wonderful pro-life Obama commercial you may have seen here recently was supposed to run during the Super Bowl on Sunday. After first accepting it, NBC apparently changed its collective mind, saying it wasn't going to run advocacy ads during the big game.



Brian Burch, President of Fidelis, a Chicago-based Catholic organization responsible for the commercial, says that NBC initially responded positively and he was raising money to pay for it. Watch the commercial below, and imagine the impact it could have had on the millions who watch the Super Bowl.

Immoral accepting Media Is A Threat to Democracy.

Commentary. Article speaks for itself.

Goldberg Says Liberal Media Is A Threat to Democracy
by Human Events http://www.humanevents.com
01/26/2009

Media bias is nothing new to conservatives. We’ve seen it all our lives. But bias is one thing, and political activism is something else entirely.

In the 2008 presidential race, the media finally crossed the line. Says author and media critic Bernard Goldberg, it’s no longer an issue of bias: the media are political activists, broadcasting campaign ads for Democrats disguised as news stories.

How bad did it get? Goldberg’s new book, “A Slobbering Love Affair,” paints a vivid picture of how bad it gets.

Goldberg writes of the clown show at MSNBC, “Chris Matthews is a journalist hooker putting out for Obama from the moment the senator showed some leg.”

“A Slobbering Love Affair” (published by HUMAN EVENTS’ sister company Regnery Publishing) -- just out today -- concludes we’ve now entered “Bamalot”: where the media are so invested in Obama’s success that they’ll do anything to help him succeed. And if reporters won’t perform their basic function in telling Americans the truth about their government, democracy cannot function.

Here are some excerpts from “A Slobbering Love Affair”:

Most Journalists Don't Even Know They Are Biased

I know these people, I used to work with them, and I can assure you that if you hooked even the most biased reporter up to a lie detector machine, while he was swearing that he was not in the tank for Barack Obama the needle on the polygraph wouldn’t budge, not even a little. (p. 13)

…they [journalists] work in liberal newsrooms imbued with liberal sensibilities. And so they are like fish in the ocean that don’t know they’re wet. How would fish know they’re wet? Fish have no frame of reference. They only know wet. And, yes, it is the same with the journalistic fish who swim in America’s big mainstream liberal newsrooms. They don’t fully understand how their liberalism affects their news judgment. (pp. 66-67)

On the Role of American Media

Goldberg relates the story of an exchange with a college professor, who asked:

“Isn’t it the role of the media to effect change in society?”

It was a statement posing as a question.

“Your change or mine?” I asked.

Silence. After a while, I thought that I had either gone deaf or that the phone went dead. It had never occurred to this supposedly well-educated liberal man who taught liberal kids at a liberal college that change comes in more than one package. My change, I explained to him, would be very different from his.…It is not the media’s role to effect change -- either the professor’s kind or mine. And while we’re on the subject, it is not the media’s role to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, even though this is taken as gospel in America’s liberal newsrooms. It is the media’s role to report the news, not to advocate for causes, no matter how noble journalists think the cause might be. (pp. 2-3)

"Clueless" Chris Matthews, The Journalistic Hooker

Matthews had just heard Obama give a victory speech and had to share his innermost thoughts -- no, make that his innermost feelings -- with all of us. “I felt this thrill going up my leg,” Matthews blurted out. Yes, Chris heard a politician speak and it sent a thrill running up his leg. Memo to Chris Matthews: This is not political analysis. This is a man crush! Matthews, who might as well have been wearing a short skirt and carrying pom-poms emblazoned with a big O, was madly in love with Obama and he didn’t care if the whole world knew it….Matthews also told Leno that night that Barack and Michelle Obama are, “cool people. They are really cool. They’re Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great looking and they’re cool….Everything seems to be great. I know I’m selling him now. I’m not supposed to sell.” I disagree. Hookers sell all the time. That’s what they do. And Chris Matthews, whatever else he may or may not be, is a journalist hooker who was putting out for Obama from the moment the senator showed some leg and decided to run for president of the United States. (pp. 24-25)

White Liberal Guilt

There are deep reasons why so many white journalists sold out their principles for Obama. In no small way, they were trying to redeem their own racial virtue. “Since the sixties, whites have had to prove a negative -- that they are not racist,” is how the scholar Shelby Steele explained it in an essay entitled, “Liberal Bias and the Zone of Decency.” Sure, they wanted to make their Messiah look good. But even more important, they wanted to feel good -- about themselves! (pp. 42-43)

Palin Derangement Syndrome

I have a theory. What drives some of them nuts is not just that they think she’s unqualified to be vice president, or certainly president, of the United States. As I said before, that’s a perfectly legitimate point of view. What makes these liberals foam at the mouth is that this “white trash,” pro-gun, pro-life, church-going woman, who didn’t to go to Harvard or Yale or Princeton, but who flitted from one second-rate school to another before she wound up (my God, they groaned) at the University of Idaho, became the most prominent woman in all of America! (p. 49)

Rush Limbaugh Explains the Media's Unabashed Liberalism

Goldberg: “Is there anything -- anything -- the mainstream media can do that will help them regain the trust of the American people -- and if so, will they do it?

Limbaugh: “…I believe the creation of the New Media has made the mainstream media now openly competitive with the New Media, which is why they are so open now about choosing sides…since I started in 1988, look at what has happened. There were 125 talk stations in 1988. Now there are over 2,000. Right-wing blogs have sprung up. FOX News prime time is simply talk radio on TV. So all this New Media pisses off the mainstream media. They are in open competition with us and as such have now been forced to openly declare what they used to hide behind their so-called objectivity: and that is their liberalism.” (pp. 55-56)

Who Beat John McCain?

As corrupt as the media were during the presidential campaign of 2008, the mainstream media did not defeat John McCain. They may have cost him a percentage point, but that’s about it. (p. 147)

Now Republicans have to take stock. They have to be introspective. They can’t blame the media for all their problems. They have to admit their mistakes and figure out where to go from here, or they will continue to lose elections. The good news for the GOP is that they have some interesting thinkers in their ranks -- people like Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele and a few governors like Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. They will figure out, I think, how to regain the trust of the American people. And that just happens to be the very same challenge facing the mainstream media. How will they regain the trust of the American people? History suggests they have a much bigger problem on their hands than do the Republicans. Politicians care what regular folks think, if for no other reason than they need regular folks to survive. The mainstream media don’t give a damn what regular folks think. They haven’t cared for years. Why change now, especially since their guy just won? (pp. 149-150)

Welcome to Bamalot

In his acceptance speech, Obama laid the groundwork. “The road ahead will be long,” he told us. “Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term” -- thus inoculating himself if he comes up short. And the mainstream media, I think, will carry that idea with them, because of the huge investment they made in his success. They will set up a construct in which all that turns out good will be to President Obama’s credit. All that turns out bad will be Bush’s fault. In other words, heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses. Although it’s too late for the media to redeem its coverage of the 2008 election, they can still hold Obama accountable as president. They should closely examine his early actions in office, especially if he issues executive orders, and report promptly any of his decisions that may function as rewards for his campaign donors and other influential supporters. I hope we don’t have to wait too long to see those kinds of stories. But the media did work hard to get Obama elected, didn’t they? So the question now is: will they risk undermining him in order to bring to the American people something as trivial as honest reporting? (pp. 156-157)

The Fix

Here’s my solution to the problem of media bias: diversity. What journalism needs is more diversity. And not just the kind we’ve grown accustomed to. Journalism needs an affirmative action program for the smallest minority in America’s newsrooms: conservatives. (p. 159)

But please understand, I don’t want these conservatives slanting the news to the right anymore than I want liberal journalists slanting it to the left. All most of us want is some fairness, and we think that diversity that goes beyond skin color and sex and ethnicity can provide it. Over the years we made sure that our newsrooms look like America. Now we need them to think a little more like America. Who could argue with that? (p.161)

You the taxpayer must pay for HANDS that shed innocent blood. The Selfish War continues against the unborn Human RACE

Jeremiah 22:17
But your eyes and your heart are only for your covetousness and dishonest gain, for shedding innocent blood, for oppression and doing violence.

How does it feel knowing that everything you are earning, buying, paying etc. etc. in the form of taxes, State and Federal, in GOD BLESS AMERICA is going to Government federally funded unborn human slaughter houses? And we are STILL supposed to believe that these butchers took a Hippocratic oath to preserve life to the fullest? We are STILL force fed that if we disallow abortion we are criminalizing women? Now what selfish tyrant came up with that false assumption? Why is the truth a lie? These are question that continue to go on and on and those in power do not practice listening to WE THE PEOPLE. It is a Politician fraternity tradition I presume. Abortion is the worst form of racism this world has ever seen and it is bewildering that it continues on and is accepted by humans that were gracefully allowed to be born. What an oxymoron to the fullest. And now it continues and we continue to pay for this atrocity.

Oh LORD you show mercy continously but we are showing how undeserving we really are.
How long will your mercy last to those who continue to those of us sin against you?

RW 01/03/09


WND Exclusive MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH


Obama pick: Taxpayers must fund abortions
Nominee takes position that 'contradicts' Constitution
Posted: January 27, 2009
10:07 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of state contends American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions, a position that contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

James B. Steinberg's written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was highlighted by Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican serving South Carolina.

In a written response to DeMint's questions, Steinberg said the Mexico City policy -- the newly overturned policy that forbade taxpayer subsidization of abortions overseas -- "is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech."

Not so, said DeMint, pointing out Steinberg's stance is in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Story continues below)




DeMint cited the 1991 Rust vs. Sullivan decision in which the court ruled, "The government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion."

DeMint had asked: "For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama's efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?"

Steinberg's complete response was, "President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds [for] abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech."

Just days ago, Obama imposed an executive order repealing the Mexico City policy that during President Bush's tenure protected Americans from being required to fund groups that promote and pay for abortions around the globe.

The plan was originated by President Reagan in 1984. It prohibited non-governmental organizations that receive federal funds from providing or promoting abortions in other nations. President Clinton rescinded the rule Jan. 22, 1993, calling it "excessively broad" and "unwarranted."

But when President Bush took office in January 2001, he immediately issued an executive order reinstituting the pro-life policy.

"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion," Bush said.

International Planned Parenthood Federation and other abortion groups refused to conform to the ban. They continued to provide and promote abortions and, consequently, were denied access to funding from U.S. taxpayers.

A Jan. 16 letter from 77 members of Congress posted by Life News had urged Obama to continue the ban.

"[T]his policy is important because it establishes a bright line between family planning activities and abortion, therefore ensuring that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning," the letter stated. "Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotes abortion."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told the Washington Post, "President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but ... signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world."

Perkins noted that Obama vowed at the debate with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain last fall at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church to find "common ground" on the issue of abortion and that he, as president, would work to "reduce the number of abortions."

"His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever," Perkins said.

The Rust vs. Sullivan decision says rules and regulations regarding abortion funding were consistent with the Constitution.

"Indeed, the legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended that Title X funds be kept separate and distinct from abortion-related activities," the opinion said.

"The regulations do not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of private Title X fund recipients, their staffs, or their patients by impermissibly imposing viewpoint-discriminatory conditions on Government subsidies. There is no question but that [the] prohibition is constitutional, since the government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds," the opinion continued.

"Similarly, in implementing the statutory prohibition by forbidding counseling, referral, and the provision of information regarding abortion as a method of family planning, the regulations simply ensure that appropriated funds are not used for activities, including speech, that are outside the federal program's scope."

As a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama opposed mandated physician help for babies who survive abortions.

The president has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act," a sweeping bill that would abolish pro-life rules and regulations across the nation.

The organization FightFOCA.com, launched to oppose the plan, already has collected 500,000 signatures in opposition.

According to Pastor Rick Scorborough of Vision America, more than 500 state, federal and local laws would be destroyed by the action.

"There are not enough words to convey the seriousness of this piece of legislation. Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and hope this will go away. It won't. If we don't do something about it, the basic fundamental right to be born will be taken from millions of unborn children, ironically, in the name of 'freedom,'" Scarborough wrote.

Among the laws that would be overturned are the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Hyde Amendment restricting taxpayer funding of abortions inside the U.S., informed consent laws, waiting period laws, parental consent and notification laws, requirements that abortion businesses follow health regulations, a ban on non-physicians doing abortions and bans on abortions of babies who can survive outside the womb.

Democrats take Limbaugh's comment out of context

Psalm 120:2
Deliver me, O Lord, from lying lips and from deceitful tongues.


Commentary: Actually I can't stand Limbaugh as much as the next guy and I think sometimes the man is brutally arrogant in allot of ways and barks up the wrong tree most of the time except for MORAL issues. I may also agree with Rush in some issues but some of his other rhetoric is sometimes seemly taken way out context on some of the issues he commits too. And you just really can't personally take the speck out of someones eye when you have a log in yours correct? which most of these way out in left field Conservatives do. I consider myself more and likely on the Moral conservative side but when most of the Talk Radio hosts are not Christ centered and completely Scriptural when they approach a political topic then I just treat it as second rate information. But this issue and attack from the Immoral left Dems against RUSH is really just another lame stunt that is normal for well the left character as always. RIGHT MINNESOTA? They make sure they propagandize and take things out of context so ludicrous so they can reel you in so to speak and blind your minds from truth. RIGHT OBAMA AND YOUR ELIGIBILITY. Even I was disturbed by the lastest attacks by the immorally owned Corp American media from the secular sewers. I do not even listen to Limbaugh but listen to both sides and I am just not surprised anymore.

FOR example:


DCCC version: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. [EDIT] I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking about replying to the guy, 'Okay, I”ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'”

What Limbaugh REALLY said: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

Now we have the first amendment to express our opinion freely correct? For both sides. Now why cannot RUSH have his say anymore in context? Are we supposed to petition everyone who debates and issue? Is this another scheme for the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ACT again? TO control free speech on the TALK RADIO AIRWAVES? TO FORCE POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS. EGHADS! I can understand explicit immoral conversations of the perverse natures, but clean talk radio on Politics so each side has a fair response WHAT?? How ridiculous. We already have that and that is called CONGRESS, the SENATE and the HOUSE OF REPS. NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT OR FREEWILL TO CONTROL FREE SPEECH GET IT? And we also have liberal radio and conservative radio. HELLO! We have the American media which is truly mostly one sided and or biased, right last 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?

Please reader, come to the knowledge of the real TRUTH in Christ JESUS so all the immoralISMS of each Political party will become transparent because you will be able challenge all things with GOD'S HOLY WORD and you will see the false exposed by the REAL TRUTH. And then you will see true FAIRNESS.

RW Jan 29 2009

Democrats Edit: Take Limbaugh's 'Want Obama to Fail' Comment Out of Context
[Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh]

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
CNSNews.com

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launches 'Help Stop Rush' petition. (From DCCC Web site)
(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an audio clip on its Web site that misrepresents what radio host Rush Limbaugh meant when he said on his Friday, Jan. 16 radio program that he wanted President Obama "to fail."

The audio clip, as played by the DCCC, omits a key sentence, as follows:

DCCC version: “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. [EDIT] I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking about replying to the guy, 'Okay, I”ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'”

What Limbaugh said: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."

Limbaugh, on his Jan. 16 radio program, also made the point that no liberals hoped President Bush would succeed. Nevertheless, Limbaugh continued, Obama "is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, 'I hope he fails.' And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing."

On subsequent radio programs, Limbaugh has talked about people "misunderstanding" his remark.

On his Friday, Jan. 23 program -- reviewing the week -- Limbaugh explained that he supports Obama -- he just doesn't support Obama's policies. "I don't support the nationalization of the banks, which has happened. I don't support the nationalization of the auto companies. I don't support the nationalization of the mortgage business. I don't like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd running things. And I don't want that to continue," Limbaugh said.

And on his Tuesday, Jan. 27 program at one point, Limbaugh referred to President Obama telling Republicans to ignore Limbaugh: "The president of the United States hopes I fail," Limbaugh said.

Democrats and liberal groups have misrepresented Limbaugh’s words and meaning on previous occasions, most notably bashing him two years ago for using the term "phony soldiers" to describe Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his military records.

A group that wanted Limbaugh removed from taxpayer-supported Armed Forces Radio claimed that Limbaugh had used the term "phony soldiers" to describe all soldiers who had spoken against the Iraq war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, wading into the controversy, gave a speech on the Senate floor, condemning Limbaugh and urging his colleagues to send a letter of complaint to the chairman of Clear Channel Communications, which syndicates Limbaugh’s radio show.

Limbaugh turned tables on Reid, however. In October 2007, the radio host auctioned off the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications demanding that Limbaugh be censured and forced to apologize to U.S. servicemen.

The winning bid on eBay was $2.1 million, which Limbaugh matched – raising $4.2 million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which serves children of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers.

See Related Stories:

Is it truly a conspiracy that they killed the EV-1 and other electric cars? See for yourself.

COMMENTARY:{see movies below)
I seen and heard about this years back and I wonder if possibly this is old news but was glad it resurfaced and was on YOUTUBE still and not removed by special interest or whomever does not want the American people to know about this. Isn't it just wonderful they really think that most Americans are stupid and they can get away with whatever because their money hides them from wrongdoing? NOT! I still like GAS POWERED Vehicles particularly muscle cars and 4x4's of old and the old 92 beast God gave me for next to nothing that runs exceptional still does me just fine I have no complaints. There is nothing like a "Killer ride dude" that muscles its way down the highway sounding like 1000 horses (oaoaoaoaoaoao grunting like Tim the tool man Taylor).

But finally they came up with an electric car that actually ran for 300 miles and I just bet they were coming up with a alternator that would continue a charge to where eventually it would run across the States and back on a charge. That is 6000 round trip if I am not over exaggerating to which I probably am. But just Imagine a car always able to go until it finally quits and you get a lot of miles and years out of it with barley any problems in the long run. I heard they were almost there until some greedy fiends pulled the plug and destroyed every electric car because we cannot have people actually out of their control can we? It takes me back to the old Dodge Dart slant 6 motor. Wow what an engine this was. I had one once, a 1964 push button transmission automatic 4 door that I believe was at least 30 miles or more a gallon if I remember right or I could be wrong but it did get allot mileage between fuel ups by far and this was a very tough engine. But Chrysler scratchedWhen it became apparent the marketplace actually wanted these cars, it rounded then all up and destroyed them.

Not a conspiracy theory. This is what actually happened. that winning model becuase that engine just was the engine that always could and was an engine that was like the energizer bunny still going and going etc. etc. You can still see a Dodge Dart, Plymouth Valiant, etc Slant 6 engine form the early 60's still just hauling away because they could not destroy all them like they did the electric cars. Did you remember the electric car that went a top speed of 200 or more or so on the Salt flats? And do you remember the electric cars sold in LA was going to be the Standard push for all residence back then to have one? Why cannot people have the option to have a gas guzzler or an electric car in the free market to compete? And who to really say what the people want and demand? You cannot base a market place on assumptions like gambling to which that is what 90% of our financial institutions are based on. Gambling and borrowing against PAPER. Yes people, paper money that is not worth anything but the same as toilet paper runs this whole madness. Gold coins, silver coins, bronze coins, or rocks used to run the show or how much cattle and crops you has was truly worth something. It is no wonder we are having a crash. GOD owns everything and this well is another warning judgment of GOD's common grace to mankind who continue to ignore HIM willfully and worship the creator rather than their Creator.

Just to say to the Hoards who are responsible, Do worry to hard or should I say worry so much because you will be caught eventually. It just depends how long GOD allows your season of treachery to last and when it is finished, just remember GOD is Sovereign and HIS judgment will be worse for you and everything you hold onto that is your idol called mammon. But in the meantime keep sweating you Corporate and Shadow Government hoards because your time of sin is over really soon. GOD must punish sinners who reject HIS righteous ways and will bring the final JUSTICE. IT is never to late too Repent and become a new soul confessing your sins to HIM alone and coming to the TRUTH and having a testimony to show all the world the Change GOD can do in you to make you new and forgiven. You will finally be able to show all the world and expose the corruption because Christ JESUS in You will be more worth than anything this decaying sinful earth that is passing away has. Praise GOD when that happens. I hope and pray it does.

RW


"Who killed the electric car?"

In the late 1990s, General Motors sold an electric car that traveled 300 miles on a charge, could be fully charged in an hour, and could be operated for the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon.

No oil filters, no oil changes, no emissions, no trips to the gas station.

So what did they do?

When it became apparent the marketplace actually wanted these cars, it rounded then all up and destroyed them.

Not a conspiracy theory. This is what actually happened.

See the complete catalog of
free Brasscheck TV videos AT http://www.brasschecktv.com

Why GM, Ford, Chrysler etc is broke and asking for handouts as they flew in their Private jets when they panhandled the Govt. for a stimulus package to continue to play their special interest games.





When it became apparent the marketplace actually wanted these cars, it rounded them all up and destroyed them.

Not a conspiracy theory. This is what actually happened.

God said "Vengeance is mine alone". So sad for those who continue on sinning against HIM.

FORCED ABORTIONS COMING TO AMERICA AND YES THE US TAX PAYER WILL PAY FOR THESE SICK ACTS OF SELFISHNESS.

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

How utterly awful and sickening that abortion still exists in the world and now they want this atrocious sinful act of selfishness to be forced? How can this be in America?
How is this a right and part of the BILL OF RIGHTS and our Constitution. How come our Government cannot explain to WE THE PEOPLE to actually where in the the Constitution does it allow Abortion to be a RIGHT? IT does not no where. This sinful act is allowed because it is supported by an already condemned people who are but a chaff to which the wind will quickly blow away very soon. GOD is and will bring judgment very soon.
For Vengeance is HIS.

RW



Planned Parenthood: Force doctors to do abortions
Law firms gear up to defend right of conscience
Posted: January 23, 2009
12:25 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Experts for the Alliance Defense Fund and Christian Legal Society are gearing up to defend three laws that allow medical professionals to follow their conscience and not participate in abortions.

"Medical professionals should not be forced to perform abortions against their conscience," said Casey Mattox, litigation counsel with the CLS's Center for Law & Religious Freedom.

"Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and their pro-abortion allies are seeking to punish pro-life medical professionals for their beliefs," Mattox said. "Far from arguing for 'choice,' these lawsuits seek to compel health care workers to perform abortions or face dire consequences."

The public-interest legal groups have filed motions to intervene in three separate lawsuits that seek to invalidate a federal law protecting medical professionals from discrimination because they refuse to participate in abortions.

(Story continues below)


Click Here


Three pro-life medical associations are seeking to defend the law against challenges by some state officials, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The actions came as the 2009 March for Life was taking place in Washington, when several hundred thousand people gathered to seek protections for the unborn, including the overturning of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Roe vs. Wade that struck down abortion limits in states.

"For over three decades, federal law has prohibited recipients of federal grants from forcing medical professionals to participate in abortions," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "The arguments in the lawsuits themselves demonstrate lack of compliance with these laws and the necessity of the regulation they are challenging."

Attorney Andrew Knott is assisting as local counsel in the latest dispute in Connecticut.

The Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, represented by CLS and ADF attorneys, are asking to be allowed to defend the law, 45 CFR Part 88, enacted in December by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Noting a pattern of grant recipients unaware of or flouting existing laws protecting medical professionals' rights of conscience, HHS enacted the new law to require grantees to certify compliance in order to receive funds. The three long-standing statutes are the Church Amendment, the Coats-Snowe Amendment and the Weldon Amendment.

The three pro-life medical groups point out that denying rights of conscience could harm access to healthcare for all by forcing medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions to either relocate from jurisdictions that force them to do so or leave the profession altogether.

Today President Obama, who as a state lawmaker in Illinois objected to requiring doctors to provide medical care for infants who survive abortions, affirmed his support for virtually unlimited abortion on demand.

Obama was issued a challenge by March for Life officials, who had invited him to address their annual march and rally.

The organization challenged Obama to "watch the evil deed of a surgical abortion to know what it looks like to pull off the head, arms and legs of a preborn human."

The organization noted, "There is a commercial killing site within a few blocks of the White House."

"Ten Pin Strike against Political Freedom"

[Commentary.]
Everybody wants to control something so they can have the most toys and the most power at the same time. So they create a monopoly, pay off a few politicians and higher ups and they get there way. Money and mammon supersedes over every other free borne human and their lively hood including the Powerful to lesson the weak and the poor their freedom. It is funny and amusing that PAPER money and more of it you have in the numbers electronically and the more paper they continue to create continues to be the nonsense that continues to dumbdown society. Tell when when if many workers who do the REAL WORK for all nations so you and I could live better really stopped doing what they do? I know this will really never happen but my question when if it did. Nothing will ever work like electronics, food supply, transportation, etc etc. and we would be a critical mass if this ever happen. The environmentalist's love this idea I think. Well do you think the rich and the powerful really expect the true workers to allow them to continue to control everything even the internet? Do you think WE THE PEOPLE truly will allow our Speech anywhere to be controlled completely? If we do then we are in for it.
RW


Move to End "Internet Neutrality": Blow to Bloggers. "Ten Pin Strike against Political Freedom"

by Sherwood Ross Global Research, January 26, 2009

If the cable and phone companies that transmit Internet data are allowed to charge higher rates to some producers for faster service the result will be “a ten pin strike against political freedom,” a prominent legal authority warns.

That’s because the change will enable the wealthy to “quickly take over the high speed transmissions (for their trash commercial content) just as they completely monopolize radio and TV, and just as their incredibly greedy profit-seeking has had a very deleterious effect on print journalism,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

Velvel’s plea for “internet neutrality” comes in his new book “An Enemy of The People,” subtitled “The Unending Battle Against Conventional Wisdom(Doukathsan).” Essentially, he writes, the proposed change is an “attempt by the wealthy to make the internet into yet another repository of their power…”

Under the new scheme sought by transmission firms, Velvel writes, “large companies would pay more, no doubt a lot more, in order to have their messages, videos, audios, and any other content transmitted rapidly. The rest of us peasants, who could not afford to have our content move fast, would pay less and have it move more slowly.”

“One can be sure that the average guy with something he wants to say will be relegated to lower speed transmissions,” Velvel writes. “Blogdom, and the use of the internet by average people for political purposes, will likely be as good as dead.”

According to Save The Internet.com(STI), “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies ---including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner---want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.”

“What we have here,” Velvel explained, “is a bunch of unregenerate capitalists, who think that nothing else is important except trying to make as much as they can conceivably get away with. As with the oil companies and the investments banks, huge profit margins and scores of millions annually for their chairmen and CEOs isn’t enough for them. They want more. Always more. Nothing else matters to them. The pipes (transmission) companies are no different.”

Velvel pointed out, “The average guy can’t be published in a newspaper, and cannot afford the money to pay to be on radio or television. His voice is limited. The great benefit of the internet, the reason it bade fair to be the new version of the poor man’s printing press (which is what picketing and marching were once called), is that it gave everyone a chance to have his or her say in a way that was immediately available to anyone who found it or knew of it and wanted to read it.”

“That is why tens of millions of blogs sprang up,” Velvel continued, “with (at least) many thousands of them being on political subjects, and with blogdom sometimes having major political impacts.”

Others besides Velvel have also commented on efforts to destroy net neutrality. As a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Bush Federal Communications Commission, Internet Neutrality, “the foundation of the free and open internet---was put in jeopardy,” STI says. “Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.”

“Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web,” STI says.

“If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected,” STI continues. “Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.”

STI warned the consequences of abandoning Internet Neutrality would be “devastating.” “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.”

For interviews with Dean Velvel, contact Sherwood Ross at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com. Email Dean Velvel at velvel@mslaw.edu

Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross

Expose the fradulence but not out of spite.

Let me put it to you all straight so no one really gets the wrong idea or have a stumbling blocked assumption to my many brash commentaries of our President or any other immoral matters based on facts and not mere opinions that I consistently and sometimes negatively report which is not really easy for me because I would rather always like to talk about the good things if this was reality alone. But it isn't. Immorality is spreading like an epidemic and the cure is JESUS. And I am motivated by earnestness to continue to be used by the Spirit of CHRIST JESUS and want so many to be saved from what we deserve and it is coming to those who remain dead in their sins. OH such an awful terror to fall into the hands of an angry GOD who will punish the well deserved and HE must punish sin if HE is a RIGHTEOUS GOD and slay the wicked when HE comes the second time like LION roaring swift with HIS terrible swift sword. If it is brash reports such as what I have been writing lately that wakes many up and rubs them the wrong way then so be it until the LORD directs my attention to something else or another approach. But I must tell it like it is.

In the case and many articles against OBAMA, I actually like the character of Obama and his smoothness of personality. Obama definitely has a cult of personality and charisma, how could you not like how his personality and character is. He seems he would be a wonderful friend doesn't he if you knew him personally. How he he gives speeches, addresses the media, and speaks in all respectable matter to everyone as a role model should be and this is actually what America needs actually from all those that run for such powerful office. If it is personality and character that is a test to win WE THE PEOPLE well Obama passed with flying colors as we all know. Even if he is one of the lessor of two evils (no pun intended) so to speak he is very likable and deserves to be prayed for continuously correct? We need to pray for his and his families soul regardless of the outcome of negitivity if there ever is one. The many articles I read questioning his citizenship and his eligibility to be President, which is very serious indeed and should never be allowed to be covered up at all costs, we should never gnash our teeth at him or curse him in such ways like the wicked do always against the righteous. We Christians who truly trust in Christ alone and know Christ alone is the only SOVEREIGN and in control, are of a higher mentality as well and we truly need to examine ourselves to see if we are. YES, we are of a higher standard in which I many times forget (laughs) and many who are still in bondage to immorality cannot stand our high given mentality because we are forgiven and they are ignorantly condemned already and we should never give them or allow them to witness such Pharisee-isms . We are Christ example if we follow HIM correct? Get it? FOLLOW HIM? As the Apostle and Saint Paul put it clearly;

Colossians 3:2
And set your minds and keep them set on what is above (the higher things), not on the things that are on the earth.

AND

Colossians 3:15
And let the peace (soul harmony which comes) from Christ rule (act as umpire continually) in your hearts [deciding and settling with finality all questions that arise in your minds, in that peaceful state] to which as [members of Christ's] one body you were also called [to live]. And be thankful (appreciative), [giving praise to God always].

Even in the situations I report against all immorality from the weakest to the strongest forms of it, I still must learn to be as graceful as the LORD is to US who were so justified by what our LORD Christ JESUS did on the cross, His resurrection, and HIS ascension for all of US who are called according to HIS purpose.
And if it seems that I have failed at this, well forgive me and I will fail sometimes because original sin still battles within me and praise GOD in Christ JESUS HE knows this and is ever at work in US, preparing for the perfection in US to come all to GOD's Glory alone, Amen? But sometimes we fall short and daily.

So I just wanted again to clear up the waves I make and make known that it is all in warning motivated by the LOVE that is within me and this LOVE offers to anyone who will have HIM. For HE does call all to repentance if they will come but HE also says few that find it. Are you one of them that desires above all things to be that few? I surely do. Nothing compares to greatness of knowing JESUS CHRIST, THE SOVEREIGN KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS who alone does satisfy US alone if we not harden our hearts.

RICHARD WHITE JAN 27 2009

Government Actions portrays that Children are the enemy especially the unborn that is the problem of the economy?

COMMENTARY. Immoral reasoning the dumbing down of humanity.

We all know that our American Government today is mostly ran by immoral-ites, owned by special interest wealthy agenda-ites who have no care for the US Constitution or have any respect for our 200 year old system and the Fore Fathers that help bring this into effect blessed by GOD. I continue to blow the same Trumpet continuously possibly annoying most of you with the same old stories, but it is the same old story. Tell what is new? What will really change? Corruption and self interest in Government will never change while sin still owns the world technically. And self absorb behavior will continue to allow sin to lead many down that WIDE road that only leads to destruction. I ask when will we truly have a Moral society again if that can be possible before Christ comes back. Some Christian re constructionist believe this is a possibility through prayer and action. Some others in the faith just give up because they are taught a systematic pessimistic eschatology or think they will be raptured and really just go on with their lives until that happens, and many are just comfortable thinking GOD blessings of God gien materialism will not waver for them in this crises because they are "living their best life now" why would GOD subject me to wrath or tribulation when HE loves me and says we are not subject to HIS wrath or judgments as they take Scripture way out of context to justify their cares for the world. Take a place for a Majority Leader and leaders who claim Christianity but act against morality at all cost to keep themselves as lifers in office so they can get paid all the days of their indulgent lives. Especially blaming now that Children are the problem of all these drains of economy and that contraception and abortion is a final solution for our economy? But hey what do we really expect from a sinful world? I do believe as the example of the book of Jonah and his sign it is still possible to CHANGE with prayer and action, but then again will the Church ever act? Again Judgment starts in the house of GOD first.

RW Jan 2008



Pelosi: Fewer babies = stronger economy
Charlie Butts and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 1/27/2009 6:00:00 AMBookmark and Share
Updated 8:45 a.m. Central

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stirred up a hornet's nest by promoting the idea of spending of millions of dollars on birth control and abortion as part of the economic stimulus package.

"Contraception," argued Pelosi, "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government." Her comments came on ABC's This Week when asked by host George Stephanopoulos how expanding "family-planning services" to the tune of millions of dollars will stimulate the economy. OneNewsNow sought reaction from Susan Fani, director of communications for the Catholic League.

"It's quite shocking, actually, that the Speaker of the House -- who claims to be Catholic -- would go on national television and claim that contraception would reduce the cost to the government," exclaims Fani. "It's just beyond words, really."


Pelosi has five children and six grandchildren. Catholic League president Bill Donohue finds her comments revealing. "We have reached a new low when high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy," he offers in a press statement. "But at least it explains their enthusiasm for abortion-on-demand."

Will the spending on "family-planning services" help dig America out of its economic doldrums?

"That's not going to help grow the economy," Fani responds. "It doesn't even make sense as a prospect for helping this country through our economic crisis. So it's wrong on so many different levels, and just shows...a very flawed thought process."


American Life League calls Pelosi's remarks "a betrayal" of her Catholic faith, and the Christian Defense Coalition says it is "unthinkable" that she would try to stimulate the economy by "seeking to reduce the number of children."

America needs to produce 2.1 children per couple to keep up with births to support the population -- and that rate is not being maintained. Economies in Europe have been especially hurt by a drop in birth rates.

"Pelosi should abstain from social engineering"

Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade

Proverbs 6:16-19
16These six things the Lord hates, indeed, seven are an abomination to Him:

17A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others], a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,(D)

18A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans, feet that are swift in running to evil,

19A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath], and he who sows discord among his brethren.



COMMENTARY. And here we still are since 1973 proving that the legalization of murder and a death sentence in the first degree to humans not out of the womb yet is still one of the worst selfish blows to America this country has ever witness outside of illegalizing prayer in the Schools and the TRUTH etc etc in 1961. Ever since stupid Americans elected immoral persons in office since the 50's because of how these CASE LAW inventors established and ruined actual JUSTICE in this country because of how CASE LAW which is truly UN_American practice if you actually study the law books since Professor Christopher Columbus Langdell was bent on ruining the Courts system to have his evolution fairy tail the norm and to have all morality ethic removed so self indulgence can be without guilt which will never happen to any human truly. Humans are condemned already if they do not trust in the SON and live their SELFish lives against HIM. So we have the worst holocaust ever in front of US daily and we wonder why we are in economic crises, and why Obama was elected and remains silent of his natural origin and he is President and possibly an illegal one at that. END ABORTION becuase GOD HATES the shedding of innocent blood remember. It is one of the 7 things HE hates.


Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade

Written by Warren Mass
Friday, 23 January 2009 15:38

Yesterday, January 22, saw a veritable army of pro-lifers participate in the 35th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This demonstration of public sentiment was first held in 1974 to mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. In that decision, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Since then, an estimated 50,000,000 babies have been killed in the womb in the United States.

As we observed yesterday, ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

This writer and his wife have been active in the pro-life movement for decades. Between us, we have participated in life rallies, life marches, life chains, and prayer outside abortion mills in states as widespread as Massachusetts, California, Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida. This year, we donated money to help send a group of 60 students from Ave Maria University in Florida to the March for Life in Washington. Needless to say, we have great admiration for the many thousands of people who marched down Constitution Avenue yesterday, and for Nellie Gray, who has organized this event from its inception. However, at yesterday’s rally, Gray told those gathered that the battle for life had to be won at the federal level, that it was not enough to send the issue back to the states, where abortion could be legal in one state and illegal in the next.

Of course, that strategy overlooks the fact that abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade that interjected the federal government into the abortion issue in the first place and at the same time made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States. Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?

Transferring powers from the states to the federal government does not automatically mean that the laws would be better or that they would be applied as originally intended. (Such transfers of power can be a very dangerous thing and can have unintended consequences, since they result in a consolidation of power as well as more distance between the governed and government.) This is true even when the intent behind giving more power to the federal government is to end injustice, as was the case with the language in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was intended to extend civil rights to freed slaves after the Civil War. Despite the intent, it was this same 14th Amendment that eventually provided the Supreme Court with its convoluted justification for writing Roe v. Wade. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provided: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis added.)

Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was the responsibility of each state to provide its citizens with equal protection of the laws. However, a series of court rulings eventually culminated in using the 14th Amendment as a pretext to make the states’ business the federal government’s business. Following this precedent, the Supreme Court that wrote Roe v. Wade first completely ignored the literal meaning of the 14th Amendment, which, (quite ironically) states that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (Emphasis added.) The court then reaffirmed a right to privacy unknown to the authors of the Constitution and found only in the “penumbra” of the Constitution (which had been cited in previous “privacy” decisions, most notably, in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965) and — following the precedent of previous courts — included the “right” to abortion in this newly invented right.

It is a case of reaping what we sow. By transferring the authority to oversee equal protection of the laws from the states to the federal government (particularly the federal courts), we have inadvertently also given the federal courts the converse power to abolish those rights! In this case, the most fundamental right of all — the right to life!

Fortunately, there exists a simpler, more practical strategy to protect life (and other things we cherish), provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This section allows Congress to strip the Supreme Court of any cases (e.g., abortion cases) where the Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiciton. Congress can also limit the jurisdication of any lower federal courts, since Congress created those courts. Congress could make Roe v. Wade a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws.

This remedy has already been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the new (111th) Congress as H.R. 539, the “We the People Act.” H.R. 539 would remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts from cases related to the free exercise or establishment of religion; the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction (e.g., abortion); the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation (same-sex marriage).

The legislation would also prohibit the federal courts from relying on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in the above list. In other words, it would remove Roe v. Wade and similar decisions from judicial precedent.

In 2003, Rep. Paul (an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 children) wrote an essay entitled “Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.” We encourage you to follow the link and read the entire essay, but here are a few of its key points:

• "Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle."

• "When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property."

• "Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life."

• "Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system…. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights."

• "Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends."

Following the March for Life, marches were encouraged to visit their congressional representatives to lobby for the right to life. As to how many of these marchers knew about H.R. 539, or encouraged their representative to cosponsor it, we have no way of knowing. But we suspect most missed the boat on what may be the only way to reverse the scourge of Roe v. Wade in most of our lifetimes.

However, each marcher (and each supporter who watched from home) still has the opportunity to contact his representative by e-mail, phone, fax, or an old-fashioned letter.

The fight for life must continue!