Palin Energizes the Ticket with a Strong ProLIfe Message

Sarah Palin has energiezed the Presidential Ticket With a Strong Pro-Life Stand.
Unfortunately Gilmore continues to trail badly with his Pro-Abortion stand for upto eight weeks.


Poll Finds Pro-Life VP Candidate Sarah Palin More Popular Than Barack Obama, Even McCain

Here is a article from Steven Ertelt at Lifenews.com

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 5, 2008

Email RSS Printer Buzz up!
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has sparked such a revival of interest and support among the American people that a new poll finds the pro-life Alaska governor more popular than pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. She’s produced such excitement and has been so well-received, she’s more popular than John McCain as well.

While most Americans had not heard of her a week ago, more than 40 million people viewed her acceptance speech -- as many as saw the Obama coronation speech even though Palin’s was shown on fewer networks.A new Rasmussen Reports poll finds Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters with just 37 percent taking an unfavorable view of the governor.

Looking at voters with the most intense views, 40 percent of the public has a very favorable view of Palin while a scant 18 percent have a very unfavorable view.Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52 percent and just one week ago, 67 percent had never heard of her.

Rasmussen’s analysis of the poll indicates, “The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain’s choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama’s choice of [pro-abortion senator] Joe Biden.”

“Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin’s favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%,” Rasmussen noted.

Palin does well because she has scored big with Republican voters and is viewed favorable by independents, too.

About 89 percent of Republicans view Palin favorably along with 59 percent of independents while 33 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of the Alaska governor.
Palin earns positive reviews from both women and men with 65 percent of men and 52 percent of women giving her a favorable rating.

Meanwhile, though Palin has come under fire from the media for her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and the decision to keep the baby rather than have an abortion,51 percent of the American public say the media is unfairly attacking Palin and the attacks may have had the effect of mobilizing support for her.

Rasmussen’s poll also indicates the Palin pick has improved Americans’ view of John McCain as 42 percent had a favorable rating of him last week and that has now jumped to 54 percent.

Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week -- from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

“Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate while 32% disagree. By way of comparison, on the night after Biden gave his acceptance speech, 47% said that Obama made the right choice,” Rasmussen indicated.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans say that McCain made the right choice while just 69% of Democrats said the same about Obama.

As We see McCain's standing in the polls helped dramatically_ McCain leads by a range of 2 to 10 percentage points. Jim Gilmore continues to trail his opponent Mark Warner. When you take a look at the recent Survey USA poll of this race you see Gilmore trailing by 21 points. More importantly when you look at the crosstabs you see that while Warner is getting the support of over 90% of the Pro-Abortion voters Gilmore is only getting 55% of the Pro-Life Voters and Warner is getting 40% of the Pro-LIfe Voters.

See link to Survey USA Poll

One has to wonder what would happen in this race if Gilmore had a strong ProLife position instead of supporting killing babies until the 8th week.

link here http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6ca1688e-186e-4fe6-b3a3-80750285ee8b&c=77

Election Novena

A Prayer for our Nation as we Prepare to Elect our Leaders


For nine weeks, from September 1 to Election Day (November 4), Priests for Life calls upon believers to participate in the “Election Novena” by saying the following prayer each day:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O God, we acknowledge you today as Lord,
Not only of individuals, but of nations and governments.

We thank you for the privilege
Of being able to organize ourselves politically
And of knowing that political loyalty
Does not have to mean disloyalty to you.

We thank you for your law,
Which our Founding Fathers acknowledged
And recognized as higher than any human law.

We thank you for the opportunity that this election year puts before us,
To exercise our solemn duty not only to vote,
But to influence countless others to vote,
And to vote correctly.

Lord, we pray that your people may be awakened.
Let them realize that while politics is not their salvation,
Their response to you requires that they be politically active.

Awaken your people to know that they are not called to be a sect fleeing the world
But rather a community of faith renewing the world.

Awaken them that the same hands lifted up to you in prayer
Are the hands that pull the lever in the voting booth;
That the same eyes that read your Word
Are the eyes that read the names on the ballot,
And that they do not cease to be Christians
When they enter the voting booth.

Awaken your people to a commitment to justice
To the sanctity of marriage and the family,
To the dignity of each individual human life,
And to the truth that human rights begin when human lives begin,
And not one moment later.

Lord, we rejoice today
That we are citizens of your kingdom.

May that make us all the more committed
To being faithful citizens on earth.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Action Call Gilmore Now Ask Him To Protect Life

Senate Candidate Earns 5 Million Dollars from Abortion Industry



PLEASE CALL GOV GILMORE AND ASK HIM TO PROTECT LIFE!


Write,call or email@631 S. Washington Street Alexandria, VA. 22314Email: info@jimgilmoreforsenate.com Phone: (703) 504-9041 Fax: (703) 504-9042





Senate Candidate earns 5 Million Dollars from Abortion Industry





This past Sunday I received this Flier/Fact Sheet.I had heard Mr. Gilmore was not 100% Pro life but I figured he was better than the alternative.However earning 5 million dollars from Barr Labs stock options-the maker of the "morning after pill"!


I understand in the published polls Mr.Gilmore loses about 25% of the Republican voters to his opponent or undecided.And he is only recieving about support for 70% of self described Republicans. Maybe he can not get the support of the other 30% because the Pro life community has no reason to vote for him.According to this flier Mr. Gilmore supports abortion until the baby's 8th week of life in the mothers womb (the picture in the right top corner of this blog is 7 weeks and 6 days old).Please read the Flier and let us know what you think or if you have knowledge that the flier is false please correct.700,000 babies a year for Five Million Dollars ....... I think that is 7 dollars and 14 cents a baby.





JIM GILMORE CAN'T BE TRUSTED ON PRO- LIFE ISSUESGILMORE SUPPORTS ABORTION IN FIRST EIGHT WEEKS IF PREGANCY



Gilmore Does Not Oppose Abortion in First Eight Weeks of Pregnacy. Gilmore does not oppose abortions in first eight weeks of pregnancy. According to the Washington Times, " There has to be some time for the babyto form in the womb,which I think happens at eight weeks. After that, I think that abortion should be limited except to save the life of the mother."( Washington Times, 3/21/08)



Famliy Research Council Senior Vice-President Said Gilmore's Policy would Effect 700,000 Unborn Children Each Year. Connie Mackey, Senior Vice-President Family Research Council: " Former Governor Jim Gilmore has insisted that abortion remain legal for up to the first eight weeks of pregnacy...Under Gilmore's policy it would be legal for approximately 700,000 unborn children to be killed each year." ( Family Research Council Action Release 5/6/08)



GILMORE SITS ON BOARDOF MORNING AFTER PILL COMPANY--HOLDS UP TO $5,000,000 IN STOCK OPTION



Gilmore Supports the Morning After Pill & Sits on the Board of the Company That Makes It. Asked if he is"for the Morning After Pill" Gilmore replied,"Oh sure, I'm on the board of the company that manufactures it."(WTOP Radio,"Politics Hour with Mark Plotkin, 6/6/08)
Gilmore Holds $5,000,000 in Stock Options & Pocketed $138,750 in Board Compensation Fees. The Washington Times reported that Gilmore "earned $138,70 over the past two-and-a-half years sitting on the Board of Directors of Barr Laboratories Inc. according to financial records filed."in May 2008." The Gilmore campaign said the figure represents director fees earnedfrom 2006 throughMay 2008. Gilmore joined the Board in January and remains its Chairman today with up to $5 Million in Barr Pharmaceuticalstock options listedon financial records. ( Washington Times, 6/9/08: Gilmore Personal Financial Disclosure, 5/15/08)



GILMORE SOFT ON ROE V. WADE-GILMORE SAID "THE COURT HAS SPOKEN"



November 1997:Gilmore :No One's Going to Ban Abortions. In a 1997 television advertisment Gilmore states: " The Supreme Court has spoken, Np one's going to ban abortions(.)"(Roanke Time 11/1/97)



March 2007: Gilmore said he wouldn't Appoint Judge to Overturn Roe V. Wade . In an interview with Human Events, Gimlore was asked if he supported overturning Roe V Wade, and Gimore responded he wouldn't appoint a judge to overturn decision.

Q.What about overturning Roe V. Wade. Is that something you would support?Gilmore: I don't think I am going to appoint a judge and tell him he's got to do that.(Human Events: 3/22/07)

Barrack Obama "...answering that question with specifiity is , you know, above my pay grade "

Does Obama Support Infanticide?

From INSIDECATHOLIC.com

Is It Fair to Say Barack Obama Supports Infanticide?
by Deal W. Hudson
8/07/08
-->Display Full Article/Printer Friendly -->Send to a Friend

Objections continue to be raised to the charge that Senator Barack Obama supports infanticide, most recently in a Huffington Post column by Seth Colter Walls. I have made this claim myself, as have Sen. Rick Santorum, Terry Jeffreys, Jill Stanek, Bill Donohue, Gary Bauer, and Nat Hentoff.

It's a dramatic charge, but here are the facts.

No one disputes that for three years running, while an Illinois state senator (from 2001 to 2003), Barack Obama was faced with a decision about a bill mandating medical care for children born alive during induced abortions. (The Illinois bill was referred to as "Born-Alive Infant Defined.")

No one disputes that in 2001 he voted against medical care for these children in committee and voted "present" on the floor; in 2002, against the bill both in committee and on the floor; and in 2003, as chairman of the committee, kept the bill from going to the floor at all.

And yet in spite of the facts, Obama's backers continue to insist that he should not be considered a supporter of infanticide.

But why shouldn't his opposition to the Illinois bill earn him that label? After all, in opposing the state legislation, Obama signaled his willingness to allow newborns to die without receiving medical attention after surviving a failed abortion.

Jill Stanek is the nurse who -- after witnessing babies being left to die in a Chicago hospital -- testified several times before Obama's committee. She reports that her testimony, including the pictures she displayed, "did not faze [Obama] at all."

Nonetheless, Obama's supporters deny the charge. Here are their claims, and the facts:

They argue that each year the bill was "bundled" with other measures, and Obama had objections against other parts of the bundle.
The fact is that the three bills were not bundled -- each had its own number and was considered separately (in 2001, no. 1095; 2002, no. 1662; and 2003, no. 1082).

The Medical Society of Illinois opposed the bill on the basis of an already existing law dating from 1975.
Yes, such a law existed, but babies were being allowed to die in hospitals anyway, as witnessed by Stanek. The bill was introduced to end that practice. It's like refusing to pass laws against speeding because AAA objects to them. The intention was to force doctors to end a barbaric practice.

Obama claims he would have voted for the 2002 federal bill if he had been presented with it.
That's a strange assertion, given the fact that the 2003 state bill was identical to the 2002 federal bill.

It's true that the 2005 Illinois bill passed by the state legislature had two sentences not contained in the 2002 federal bill or the 2003 state bill. But Obama has already claimed that he would have signed the 2002 federal version of the bill, which did not contain the two sentences of the 2005 Illinois bill.

Also, the additional two sentences of the Illinois bill merely reiterate the crucial sentence of the 2002 federal bill that allowed pro-abortion senators like Ted Kennedy to sign it.

Here's the sentence: "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."

Even NARAL did not oppose the 2002 federal bill.

When Obama spoke on the floor of the Illinois senate against the protection act -- in fact, he was the only senator to do so -- he made it clear that his reason for rejecting it was his fear of its overturning Roe v. Wade:
Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute (emphasis added).
The 2002 version of the federal bill contained the sentence quoted above, which directly addressed Obama's concern. Every pro-abortion senator in the U.S. Congress voted for the bill -- it passed unanimously.

Yet when Obama was presented with an identical bill in committee in 2003, he wouldn't allow it to pass committee and go to the floor. Why did Obama block the 2003 bill when it satisfied his concern about overturning Roe v. Wade?

As Gary Bauer put it, "If abortion stalwarts such as Boxer and Kennedy were satisfied with the federal born alive bill, why wasn't Obama satisfied with an identical state bill?"

Obama's record makes it very difficult to believe anything other than he has been a supporter of infanticide. If he has changed his mind, all he has to do is say so.

Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008).Editor's Note: This article originally referred to the Illinois bill in question as the "Induced Birth Infant Liability Act" (SB1094); the bill is actually "Born-Alive Infant Defined" (SB1095). The text has been changed to reflect the correction; we regret the error.

Planned ParentHood Attacking Pro-Life Docs

From LifeNews.com


Planned Parenthood Still Attacking Bid to Protect Pro-Life Docs on Abortion
RSS Newsfeed Email article Printer friendly
by Steven ErteltLifeNews.com EditorAugust 6, 2008
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood is continuing its relentless onslaught against a proposal within the Bush administration to protect pro-life doctors, nurses and other medical professionals who don't want to be involved in abortions.
The measure deals with employment discrimination but Planned Parenthood has sold it to its members as a plan to hinder the distribution of birth control.
Under the Bush plan, enforcement is ramped up on existing laws that prevent employers receiving federal funds from discriminating against medical staff who want nothing to do with abortions.
The measure also protects medical centers that don't want abortions done on site.
As Planned Parenthood has said -- and continued to maintain in a Wednesday email -- the abortion business believes the Bush administration is trying to redefine birth control as abortion.
That's because the definition of abortion in the proposal makes it clear the administration is talking about the destruction of human life from the moment of conception -- when a new human life is conferred.
In her email to the pro-abortion group's supporters, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said her group has been able to get tens of thousands of emails in to the Bush administration opposing the protection of pro-life medical professionals.
"You were one of more than 33,300 Planned Parenthood supporters who sent a message to the president," she said.
Richards pointed to the media hubbub that has resulted from the first details of the plan and said she is glad "the secret gift to far-right extremists that Bush tried to keep quiet was the focus of increased media scrutiny."
She also described the continuing efforts to oppose it.
"Meanwhile, we are building a coalition of health care providers, women's rights organizations, congressional leaders, and thousands of citizens to fight back against Bush's health care sellout," she said.
Part of that efforts involves getting pro-abortion activists to leave comments on the blog maintained by Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt.
"Leavitt uses his official blog to communicate about government policy," the group says. "Leave a comment on Secretary Leavitt's blog urging him to respond to ... growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care."
Pro-life groups are backing the measure and saying the abortion definition is very clear -- that any drug or procedure that ends the life of an unborn child after the point of conception is an abortion.
The proposed HHS rules define abortion as “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
Abortion advocates have a problem with the implantation wording because the morning after pill can cause an abortion in some instances of an unborn children between the points of fertilization and implantation.
As a result, the drug is abortifacient in some circumstances and abortion activists would rather have the public believe Plan B is a non-abortion birth control pill that only works to prevent pregnancy not destroy a human life.
Under the proposal, facilities receiving federal funds would be required to sign written certifications that they don't force staff to be involved in abortions as a prerequisite for receiving the monies.
The Health and Human Services Department issued a statement responding to the criticism.
"Over the past three decades, Congress has passed several anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care providers participating in federal programs," the department said. "HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws and is exploring a number of options."
ACTION: go to Secretary Leavitt's web page and leave a pro-life comment urging strong support for the policy to protect pro-life doctors and medical centers from being forced to be involved in abortions. You can leave a comment at http://secretarysblog.hhs.gov/

Black Genocide

‘Black genocide’
Abortion: Protesters want the NAACP to speak up on the slaughter of unborn African-Americans Alisa Harris
If someone wiped out the entire African-American population in Oakland, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C., the number still wouldn't equal the number of black babies lost to abortion in one year: 683,294. According to the Allan Guttmacher Institute, African-American women are nearly five times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost one in every two African-American pregnancies ends in abortion.
These are facts, say pro-life blacks, that the NAACP can't afford to ignore. On July 14, the pro-lifers—including Alveda King (niece of Martin Luther King Jr.) and Clenard Childress of Life Education and Research Network—picketed the NAACP's 99th Annual Convention to address what Childress calls "black genocide." King said of Planned Parenthood, "It has led the way in eliminating African-Americans to the point where one quarter of the black population is now missing because of abortion. Planned Parenthood is anti-life and we are here to say enough is enough!"