Late Sunday morning at a church service in Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller, who was under investigation and brought up on charges for late-term abortions, the most conducted nationwide by any doctor, was gunned down by another man.

Dr. Tiller was shot and killed on Sunday by the man currently in custody, Scott Roeder, a 51-year-old.

Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services clinic is one of just three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy. The clinic was heavily fortified and Tiller often traveled with a bodyguard, but Stolz said there was no indication of security at the church Sunday.

Anti-abortion groups denounced the shooting and stressed that they support only nonviolent protest. The movement’s leaders fear the killing could create a backlash just as they are scrutinizing U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whose views on abortion rights are not publicly known.

“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down,” Troy Newman, Operation Rescue’s president, said in a statement. “Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning.”

[...]

Tiller remained prominent in the news, in part because of an investigation begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent.  (Tiller also had suspicious ties and money attributed to Kathleen Sebelius – Obama’s HHS cabinet member).

Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires. A jury in March acquitted Tiller of all 19 misdemeanor counts.

“I am stunned by this lawless and violent act, which must be condemned and should be met with the full force of law,” Kline said in a statement. “We join in lifting prayer that God’s grace and presence rest with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends.”

So what do we know about Roeder?  (We don’t know much)

There are contradicting reports of what this man was involved in and what he supported and there is also a very suspicious comment on a youtube clip from 3 weeks ago that warned about Scott Roeder – calling him a con-man so people need to stop jumping to conclusions first and foremost.

Here is an article that states he is not part of the pro-life movement, but rather part of fringe non-government, militia groups.

Here is an article that gives accounts by his friends that he was in fact anti-abortion.

Then there is the youtube clip here, with the following comment (3 weeks ago page 5 for comments):

Loading…
mondoballz (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
0
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
watch out for scott roeder
hes the biggest fraud con man
on earth yehweh bless

This was an unfortunate event and we can already assume that the liberals and the media will take this to the nth degree to demonize the pro-life movement which has been gaining speed and actually showed great improvement as far as where America falls on the issue as recently as last month when 51% agreed with pro-life causes.  I think Governor Palin sums it up with her statement that she issued today:

“I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, ‘What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today’s event in Kansas?’

Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller’s abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.”

However, the liberals are blaming, as usual, Rush, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, among other prominent conservatives (I’m sure Sarah Palin will be blamed as well – they love bashing a genuine person).  Here are some comments being made by the leftists already:

This man hates women unless he controls them.

That pretty much is standard operating procedure for a lot of anti abortionists. Women are great as long as they are under their control.

[...]

Bill O’Reilly should be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder.

[...]

I am surprised O’Reilly has not been sued for defamation for this. That’s the minimum he should be held to. Just because he did not come right out for the assination of Dr. Tiller, he cannot escape his own significant contribution to his death.

He has blood on his OWN hands now. As well as all of those who have provided comfort and refuge to the Army of God and the rest of the wingnut American Taliban. They are the worst kind of fascists.

[...]

Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Beck–they all preach hatred. Hatred is their game. Inferior people have to have someone to look down upon. Racism is more often found among frustrated people who try to elevate themselves by comparing themselves with those who have less, or who are “just different” (skin color, for example).

It all comes out finally, whether it is the mass killings on a campus, or an abortion doctor. These hate mongers bear much of the responsibility for what is going on. Why they are allowed to use the publicly owned airwaves to spread their venom is hard to understand.

[...]

So my question to Ann Coulter is: Did George Tiller have “a procedure performed on him with a rifle”? Did he simply get his just desserts?

If the murderer was not a follower of Coulter’s, he certainly acted from the sort of hateful sentiment she disseminates in popular and right-wing media.

So the moonbats, as usual, attack not the gunman, but those on the outskirts as the conspirators or the probable cause of this murder.  I hate the victim mentality and believe all people need to take responsibility for their own actions – this was one lone gunman/loon who murdered somebody – not an entire movement or political ideology.

Based on the above, there is a lot of contradicting evidence upon who Scott Roeder really is and also an interesting youtube comment from 3 weeks ago which seemed to warn people of this guy!?  Um… there is something incredibly suspicious here and I think that there needs to be more investigation first, before all the tin-foil hats are donned by the liberals to come up with some kooky conspiracy theories.

The hypocrisy in all of this is that I could just as easily demonize the entire Left for the environmental activist bombings that took place in the 90′s which killed people, or I could say that Obama, Clinton, Biden, CNN, NBC, etc. are responsible for illegal immigrants murdering American citizens because they are for amnesty and won’t disclose these murders in public or call the individuals illegals – but technically the accountability should always be on the person who committed the crime(s).

There is fringe on both sides of the aisle and anyone who believes in ideological purity is not somebody that I feel is all that sane.  I believe strongly in the platforms and principles of the right and will always preach those values as well as call out the other side.  That’s not to say that I can’t see good on the Left time to time or also admit when those on the Right were wrong.

This was a tragic event and it’s something that we all need to think long and hard about and stop demonizing one another over the crazy actions of a lone gunman.  It’s too bad that Dr. Tiller’s life had to end the way it did, there is nothing to be gained from taking someone’s life in cold blood, whether you agreed with the Dr. or not (two wrongs don’t make a right).  This hurts the pro-life movement, not because they agreed, in fact, it is just the opposite; all pro-life groups that are main stream have condemned Scott Roeder’s acts, but the media and the left will use this incident as a means to an end and will use one person to define the “whole.”  It’s incredibly disingenuous and incredibly hypocritical to do so.

Share on Facebook

A Study by the Pew Research Center (which is typically liberal so this is great news!)

Overview

Public attitudes on a pair of contentious national issues – gun control and abortion – have moved in a more conservative direction over the past year. In both cases, the changes have been driven in part by relatively large shifts among men, while opinions among women have not changed very much.

For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post.

The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).

More Men Back Gun Rights

A widening gender gap is now apparent on both abortion and gun control. A year ago, a narrow majority of men (51%) said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 45% said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Today, by 57% to 38%, men say protecting gun rights is more important.

By contrast, 60% of women say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 33% see protecting gun rights as more important. In April 2008, 64% of women said controlling gun ownership was more important compared with 30% who placed greater importance on protecting the right to own guns.

The balance of opinion among independents has changed substantially over the past year. In April 2008, a majority of independents (56%) said it was more important to control gun ownership; currently, independents are divided, with 48% saying it is more important to protect gun rights and 45% saying it is more important to control gun ownership.

Support for gun rights has increased by 11 points in the Midwest, nine points in the South and seven points in the West; in all three regions, opinion is now evenly divided over whether it is more important to protect gun rights or control gun ownership. By contrast, there has been virtually no change among those living in the East, where a substantial majority (63%) continues to say that controlling gun ownership is the greater priority.

Gun Ownership and Gun Control

As might be expected, people who say they have guns in their home are much more supportive of gun rights than are those who do not own guns. Overall, a third of Americans – including 42% of men and 25% of women – say they have a gun, rifle or pistol in their home.

By a wide margin (68% to 28%), gun owners say it is more important to protect the right to own guns than to control gun ownership. The much larger share that does not have a gun in their home (63% of the public) places greater priority on controlling gun ownership by 63% to 31%.

There are substantial gender differences in views about gun control among gun owners and non-owners alike. Fully three-quarters of men who say they have a gun in their home (75%) believe it is more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership; a much smaller majority of women gun owners agree (57%). Similarly, most men who do not have a gun in their home (53%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. But an even higher percentage of women who are not gun owners (69%) place a greater priority on controlling gun ownership.

Abortion Support Slips

Currently, 43% of men say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 46% say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. In August 2008, a greater proportion of men said that abortion should be legal than illegal (by 53% to 42%).

The change among women has been more modest – 49% believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases, down from 54% last August.

People older than 50 – both men and women – express less support for legal abortion than they did in August 2008. Just 40% of men older than 50 say abortion should be legal in most or all cases compared with 53% last summer. Support for legal abortion among women older than 50 has fallen from 53% to 45%.

There has been little change in opinions among women younger than 50: 53% say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, which is largely unchanged from August (55%). Support for abortion has declined since last April among men under age 50 (from 53% then to 45% currently).

Abortion Opinions: A Closer Look

Between August and late October 2008, the proportion supporting legal abortion ranged from 57% (in mid-October) to 53% (in late October), before declining to 46% currently. Though opinion among some subgroups varied significantly across those surveys, some trends are apparent, aside from the falloff in support among men.

There has been notable decline in the proportion of independents saying abortion should be legal in most or all cases; majorities of independents favored legal abortion in August and the two October surveys, but just 44% do so today. In addition, the proportion of moderate and liberal Republicans saying abortion should be legal declined between August and late October (from 67% to 57%). In the current survey, just 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should legal in most or all cases.

Among religious groups, support for abortion has steadily declined since August among white mainline Protestants (from 69% then to 54% currently). And just 23% of white evangelical Protestants now favor legal abortion, down from 33% in August and mid-October and 28% in late October.

The change has been less pronounced among white non-Hispanic Catholics: In August, 51% said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases; in both October surveys, 55% favored legal abortion. In the current survey, 49% of white non-Hispanic Catholics say that abortion should be legal while 42% believe it should be illegal.

About the Survey

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates among a nationwide sample of 3,013 adults, 18 years of age or older, from March 31 – April 21, 2009 (2260 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 753 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 271 who had no landline telephone). Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Both the landline and cell phone samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Detailed information about our survey methodology

The questions in this release were asked of Form 2 respondents only; results are based on 1,521 interviews. For results based on Form 2, one can say that the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, and population density to parameters from the March 2008 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample is also weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the sample.

About the Center

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

All of the Center’s research and reports are collaborative products based on the input and analysis of the entire Center staff consisting of:

Andrew Kohut, Director
Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research
Carroll Doherty and Michael Dimock, Associate Directors
Michael Remez, Senior Writer
Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Robert Suls, Shawn Neidorf, Leah Christian and Jocelyn Kiley, Research Associates

Kathleen Holzwart and Alec Tyson, Research Analysts

Share on Facebook

If this isn’t sweet justice, then I don’t know what is – but I sure do love Happy Endings!

The Vatican has blocked the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as US ambassador, according to reports.

Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.

Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy’s daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.

I guess the Pope, like you know, like figured out, that like Caroline, and like the rest of you know, the Kennedy clan, was like you know, anything but like pro-life or like remotely Catholic you know.

The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama’s support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.

Ms Kennedy, 53, has said that she supports abortion. Raymond Flynn, a former US ambassador to the Vatican, said earlier this week that Ms Kennedy would be a poor choice.

“It’s imperative, it’s essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has pro-life values. I hope the President doesn’t make that mistake,” he told the Boston Herald. “She said she was pro-choice. I don’t assume she’s going to change that, which is problematic.”

The White House refused to comment.

Good for the Pope and the Catholic Church.  You may not agree with the pro-life stance, but a religion shouldn’t have to kowtow to a political agenda or ideology.  As I learned in International Business in undergrad – if you are conducting business or negotiating with a business overseas you should know their culture and respect it – same goes for the Catholic Church. 
I’m not sure if Obama and his Administration are just that incompetent or just deliberately doing this to demean the Catholic religion.  I tend to lean towards the latter – which is why I’m glad the Pope is holding his own.

Since this report is coming out of the U.K. I’m curious to know whether or not the rest of the MSM will report on this, besides Fox News.

Share on Facebook

President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel once compared “forced pregnancy” with slavery. Now Republicans are considering a filibuster to block her confirmation.

The controversy stems from comments made 20 years ago by Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, whose nomination is pending before the full Senate.

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”

At least 45 House Republicans have co-signed a letter to Obama asking him to withdraw Johnsen’s nomination because of her “brazen” abortion rights stance.

NARAL said this week it is mobilizing its nationwide network of activists and supporters to pressure the Senate to confirm Johnsen and two other Obama nominees — Judge David Hamilton and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — and stop what it deems attacks on nominees who support abortion rights. Filibusters won’t be tolerated, the group said.

“The use of the ‘F’ word when referring to any of these nominees is unacceptable — and this threat will not go unanswered,” NARAL president Nancy Keenan said in a press release

But during the Bush Administration, how many appointees were filibusterd? How hypocritical can they be?
This party is so out of wack, it is just scarry.

Click here for entire article.

Share on Facebook

Click here to read the entire Op-Ed

The organization NARAL Pro Choice America blasted Virginia’s Governor Tim Kaine — the chairman of the Democratic National Committee — on Tuesday for signing a bill that, NARAL says, includes state funding for crisis pregnancy centers. Essentially, if someone buys a “Choose Life” license plate, some of the proceeds would go to crisis centers.

What are they so afraid of? Are their manipulative tactics and practices being threatened?

Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.

And that is what everyone should be offerd. Information about all their options. Choices.

NARAL claims that crisis pregnancy centers — which exist to dissuade women from having an abortion — mislead woman. In New York, abortion rights groups lobbied Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to shut down such centers because they allegedly “scared” women.

And they should scare them a little bit. Abortion is taking the life of the most innocent and unprotected. This is not a form of birth control. Giving the woman a choice to have or provide a couple with an adoptive baby is much more worthy than terminating the life of the infant. What are they so scared of?

Women are not delicate little flowers who can’t handle information, despite what NARAL Pro Choice and Planned Parenthood tell us. They should have the option of having all the information presented to them before an abortion so they understand what they are doing.

How true is this? Women are a lot tougher, smarter, and able to make decisions about life than an angry pro-choice mob demanding abortion rights (which I, obviously, do not agree with). Women in this situation need to know all the facts so they can make an informed decision, not one based on radical ideology.

Abortion-rights activists sneer about anti-abortion advocates ignoring science. But the reality is that science is not on the side of NARAL or their ilk, and they know that. That’s why they don’t want women looking at ultrasounds or hearing that what they call a “little clump of cells” has a heartbeat at 3 weeks. (I learned that at the “Bodies” exhibit).

It was learning about that current science on fetal development that first shook my strong pro-choice beliefs. (I’m now where most Americans are: not advocating overturning Roe v. Wade, but in favor of limitations on abortion).

Exactly. I am not completely in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, however, there needs to be some serious intervention and PREVENTION. There are situations, either medical or criminal, that merit this procedure, then I can agree. However, when it is simply for the convenience of the mother to be….well, I have a problem with that.

Another key focus was on how to help women get health insurance if they wanted to keep the baby and finding parents to adopt the child if they wanted that option.

But as a person who cares about women’s rights, I would be enormously pleased if the people who claim to be “pro-choice” would embrace a wider array of choices for women dealing with unwanted pregnancies, rather than trying to bully any organization offering abortion alternatives out of existence.

Share on Facebook

President Obama’s current nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary, is under fire for unpaid taxes.
In a letter to the Senate, Gov Sebelius explains that the $7,000 plus “oversight” was due to business and other personal transactions.
The point here, is these are supposed law makers, and most of whom are independently wealthy (to some extent) who pay tax lawyers to keep their taxes on track (or so it would seem). To us, what this hi-lights is that these nominees have all either been ripped off by these tax accountants or they all think they can shave off tax money owed to the IRS. Since it such a prevalent problem among many of Obama’s nominations, it would seem the latter would be a good choice.
It is of particular interest because these are the very same income brackets that President Obama wished to raise the tax rates on. So then we must start to wonder what tax loopholes will the Democrats put into the the tax code to protect themselves.
It does not bode well that the Tax and Spend administrations major nominations are less than honest on their personal taxes when they sure want to spend our tax dollars into oblivion.

After news broke Tuesday of Sebelius’ letter admitting the errors, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., quickly issued a statement supporting her nomination.

“Congress is going to need a strong partner at the Department of Health and Human Services to achieve comprehensive health reform this year, and we have that partner in Gov. Sebelius,” Baucus said. “There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Gov. Sebelius has the political experience, determination, and bipartisan work ethic to get the job done with Congress this year. She’s the right person for the job.”

In other words, despite all of these tax issues, she is going to sail through confirmation in the Senate. There will be no Democrat opposition to this nomination.

Another major issue with Gov Sebelius, is that she is a staunch Pro-Choice supporter. In the interim run up to Senate hearings she signed a feel good bill in the wake of Dr Death’s acquittal two weeks ago.

The bill requires abortion providers to offer women seeking abortions the option of viewing an ultrasound and listening to a fetal heartbeat monitor.

Well there is a bill with some teeth. Yes you can choose to have a picture and listen to the sound, if you so desire.

Sebelius in the past has vetoed antiabortion-rights legislation. Beth Martino, a spokesperson for Sebelius, said the governor signed the bill because it included no constitutional flaws and did not jeopardize patient privacy or block access to health services (AP/Los Angeles Times, 3/28). By signing the bill, Sebelius — who is expected to begin U.S. Senate confirmation hearings on Tuesday — “steered clear of one final showdown with anti-abortion lawmakers as she exits Kansas politics,” the Star reports.

She signed the bill because it did nothing to strengthen pro-life positions, of which she is staunchly opposed to. This was simply a feel good measure designed to provide some smoke and mirrors for the Senate confirmation hearings. To me this is a bigger issue than the taxes. She is an liberal who allows partial birth abortions to take place in her state and did nothing about it. In what turned out to be a joke trial over partial birth practices in her state, it only makes you wonder what protection she will offer the unborn.

Share on Facebook