Related: Private sector America has donated at least a billion to Haiti for relief after Earthquake.
Ministries from across America respond to Haiti. Just check out these email updates in the past couple of days from various conservative Christian groups alone. 
US stinginess in foreign aide?/Organized Christianity abuses power and money?/Big Business' portrayed as corrupt?

Massive Earthquake in Chile

Samaritan’s Purse emergency workers and supplies have arrived in southern Chile, where a massive earthquake struck before dawn Saturday and triggered tsunami warnings across the Pacific Ocean as far away as Hawaii.

A disaster response team from our country office in neighboring Bolivia brought in truckloads of food and blankets. We are working with evangelical church partners in the affected areas to assess the needs and determine the locations where we can help.

The earthquake was measured at a magnitude of 8.8 and centered just off the coast near Concepcion, the second largest city in Chile. Major damage was reported 200 miles away in the capital city of Santiago. It hit at 3:34 a.m. local time Saturday, February 27 (1:34 a.m. Eastern Time), while many people were asleep in their homes.

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said Sunday that the quake killed at least 708 people. As many as 2 million Chileans were affected and 500,000 homes severely damaged. Calling it an "unthinkable disaster," Bachelet said a "state of catastrophe" in the hardest-hit regions would continue, allowing for the quick distribution of aid.

"This will take a great effort from all sectors, public and private," she said.

Chile has a history of devastating earthquakes, including the most powerful one ever measured, a 1960 quake that measured 9.5 and killed several thousand people. By comparison, the earthquake that killed over 230,000 people in Haiti Jan. 12 measured 7.0. Each increase of one point represents 32 times more intensity.

Please pray for the people of Chile and our local church partners.


To give a listen to some tunes go to The Rocket Summer web site here.



Mr Bunning is right. We have 400 billion dollars not spent from the stimulus package why not use some of that. They just passed "pay as you go" and what good is that if you don't "pay as you go". Unbelievable.


Interesting find of what is keeping the budget balanced and unemployment low in North Dakota compared to the national average from the Wall Street Journal. Click on link to read full article...

Oil Industry Booms -- in North Dakota 


KILLDEER, N.D.—A massive oil reserve buried two miles underground has put North Dakota at the center of a revolution in the U.S. oil industry, a shift that has radically altered the fortunes of this remote area.

The Bakken Shale deposit has been known and even tapped on occasion for decades. But technological improvements in the past two years have taken what was once a small, marginally profitable field and turned it into one of the fastest-growing oil-producing areas in the U.S.
The Bakken Shale had helped North Dakota oil production double in the past three years, surging to 80 million barrels in 2009—tiny relative to the more than seven billion barrels consumed by the U.S. every year, but enough to vault the state past Oklahoma and Louisiana to become the country's fourth-biggest oil producer, after Texas, Alaska and California. If current projections hold, North Dakota's oil production could pass Alaska's by the end of the decade....The state's unemployment rate was 4.3% in December—more than five percentage points below the national level—and the state government projects a surplus for the current budget cycle.


Boehner vs Pelosi on tax payer funding of abortion in Senate Health Care bill.

First watch a minute from Boehner.

Then 20 seconds or so from Pelosi.

It is easy to prove that Pelosi is way off in her assessment here and she should be the one that knows it. Her own House that she was leader of last year passed the Stupak amendment which is "current law" on tax payer funding of abortion by a vote of 240 - 194. That is quite a majority. More of a majority then the actual passing of the health care bill in the House. Over 60 democrats agreed with Boehner on this issue and they continue to do so.

Video below is pro-life Democrat Stupak who co-sponsored the bi-partisan amendment and how the Senate bill is unacceptable to him. The only thing bi-partisan in this health care bill so far is the pro-life amendment to insure "current law" in the House health care bill which Pelosi is now condemning!!! This is a great example along with Reid's absurd comments at Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in Health Care Summit claims nobody is talking about reconciliation but just 6 days ago he did on a local Nevada news station. why Americans are not happy with Majority leadership out of the House or Senate. For more see Video: Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak says President Obama's health proposal probably won't pass in the House and Video: Stupak, Pitts and company make statements and answer questions about the passing of the bi-partisan pro-life amendment by a vote of 240 - 194 and So what does pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak think of President Obama's health care proposal?


See Values Voter News analysis and comments of Health Care Summite at: Video: Health Care Summit and some comments and analysis and Video: Minority leader in the House brings out the issue of tax payer funding of abortion at Health Care Summit

The age of the internet at work. The internet is holding our elected officials accountable to their statements like never before!!!

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid whether purposefully or not pretty much lied to the American people in his opening statement as he was accusing Republicans of lying.


Related: Video: Nancy Pelosi vs Boehner from health care summit on whether or not tax payer funding of abortion is in Senate bill.

See Values Voter News analysis and comments of Health Care Summite at: Video: Health Care Summit and some comments and analysis and Harry Reid claims nobody is talking about reconciliation but just 6 days ago he did on a local Nevada news station.

Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak was quite a champion to insure current law on tax payer funding of abortion remains current law in the health care bill. See Stupak's recent comments on our Presidents recent proposal at So what does pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak think of President Obama's health care proposal?

See Video: Stupak, Pitts and company make statements and answer questions about the passing of the bi-partisan pro-life amendment by a vote of 240 - 194 for press conference when this legislation passed in the House that the minority House leader speaks of below.

Also, see Letter: Minority Leader Boehner sends letter to White House to include Stupak in health care summit tomorrow where he asks our President to include Stupak in the discussion. For more on why this may be of interest concerning the health care bill see more below.

For recent video of Stupak on the 24th or 23rd watch video below as to where the bill is at on tax payer funding of abortion. Remember Stupak is a pro-life democrat and this is what he says concerning the current health care legislation even after our Presidents proposal just before the summit. First posted at Values Voter News at Video: Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak says President Obama's health proposal probably won't pass in the House


Abby Johnson just this last year quit her job as Director of a local Planned Parenthood office in Texas. See more on that story at During 40 days for life campaign a Planned Parenthood director watches ultrasound of an abortion and later quits job

Related: Video: Abby Johnson's speech at Walk for Life of thousands in San Francisco
40 Days for Life video reporting on Planned Parenthood closing in Kalispell, Montana. A must view for all pro-lifers...


Related: Video: Daniel Hannan on the demise of Europe and "Time for a British Tea Party"
Video: Texas Governor Rick Perry says "This interested in punishing Texas" and "Time to make Tea Parties twice as big as what they were"

As you read announcement of the kick off of a British Tea Party event in Britain Check out the #2 Top Rated Video of All Time on YouTube in the UK in the category of News and Politics where Daniel who will be speaking at this Tea Party event in Britain makes a strong rebuke to Big Government and predicts that the voters will soon have their say in the upcoming elections and the voters proved Mr Hannan to be correct. See First Canada, then UK and EU, then Japan and now Germany's recent elections give another all time worst blow to liberal politicians and UK's labour party takes the worst showing since 1918 as conservatives gain ground. YouTube video of Daniel Hannan MEP for one reason why.

By the way Daniel Hannan predicts in Europe voters will again vote against Big Government referencing the recent American victory against Big Government in Massachusetts

Below from Daniel Hannan's blog announcing the kick off of a British Tea Party.

British Tea Party Movement to launch on Saturday

American protesters hold signs in the rain during the protest last
 year (Photo: AP)
American protesters hold signs in the rain during the protest last year (Photo: AP)

The inaugural British Tea Party will take place on Saturday in my home town of Brighton, and I’ll be speaking. Do try to come: here are the details.

Labour has raised more than a trillion pounds in additional taxation since 1997. Yet, unbelievably, Gordon Brown has still managed to run up a deficit of 12.6 per cent of GDP (Greece’s is 12.7 per cent). A far lower level of taxation brought Americans out in spontaneous protest last year.

If you happen to be coming to the Conservative Spring Conference, do please pop in: the Tea Party is five minutes’ walk from the conference venue. It is, however, outside the security zone, and anyone is welcome to come. Oh, and this being England, we’ll be serving actual, you know, tea. I hope to see some of this blog’s readers there.


The Republicans got 110 minutes of talking while Democrats got 114 minutes however the President awarded himself 119 minutes. Unbelievable. Not only that but as you watch you will see that President Obama plays as referee and player and gets to respond to any Republican speech he wants in full time but barely awards Republicans an allowance to respond and quite less timing. Republicans held themselves well in our President's home court. CNN's David Gergen proclaimed that Republicans "had their best day in years.". See Home Court Advantage Didn’t Help Obama.

For some balance and fairness I have made some comments concerning the summit below but for a better and probably more in depth and more scholarly opinion see The Heritage Foundation's analysis at Heritage’s Ongoing Analysis of Health Care Summit and Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds to the Health Care Summit and Home Court Advantage Didn’t Help Obama.

Part 1

It appears to me that Republicans are for a step by step approach to health care reform whereas Democrats want the current comprehensive approach that is currently very unpopular with the American people.

The points made about the reconciliation process were quite interesting. Reconciliation has been used before as one of the Democrats pointed out but I am not sure if reconciliation has been used against the will of the American people before and on a big bill like this. It is one thing to use it on a big bill that the American people back but another on a big bill that the American people have overwhelmingly opposed.

54:00 minutes: President Obama and Republican Alexander dispute CBO analysis that states insurance costs will go up under current health care reform. Do get to 58:30 minutes. President says he wants this issue settled today.

91:30 minutes: Dave Camp does a great job showing how the discussion between Lamar Alexander and President Obama as to whether or not the current health care bill will lead to an increase in health insurance costs. He actually proves how both President Obama and Lamar Alexander are both right on the issue of costs. To appreciate this discussion more fully about go back to 54:00 minutes and note above. This actually does settle the issue our President wanted settled from earlier!!!

96:30 minutes: Another point that I was just about to make as McConnell points out at about 96:30 minutes is that Republicans have had 24 minutes to Democrats 55 minutes of speaking time so far. Not only that but President Obama has pretty much allowed a response to all the Republican speeches but not the other way around. Each time the Republican had to jump in themselves.

97 minutes: Paul Ryan does a great job in explaining the real differences between the Republican view and Democrat view. Really it boils down to regulation and how much should the government get involved in health care in mandates and regulations. President Obama point this section out. This is really the difference that divides the two parties.

107 minutes: Republican Jon Kyl applauds our President for explaing the real difference between the Democrat and Republican plan and makes further comments. Kyl gives some concrete examples of how these two difference could play out in health care legislation.

President Obama again takes the liberty to respond to criticism of the bill and why Republicans wish to scrap and start over with a truly bi-partisan bill. Notice our President allows no rebuttal to his rebuttals. This has not at all been a fair discussion in timing and allowing only one side to respond to criticism.

123 minutes: Again our President gives himself the liberty of to much time and allowance of response when finally a Republican got a minute response in there. Unbelievable. Our President would not at all make a fair moderator.

It is also interesting who always gets the last saw without fail in this "bi-partisan" discussion.

127 minutes: I have found the Republicans so far to handle themselves very well and respectfully in spite of the above facts and I think will fair very well for them as it should in the eyes of the public...127 minutes. You can really tell which party has the American people backing them. By the way many of the Democrats and our President is handling this you can tell which party is concerned about negative public opinion and rightly so given Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts and all current polling.

141 minutes: McCain calls our President out on his promises. Not so elegantly but none the less makes a point that many Americans are indeed concerned about and President Obama had no real answer to the criticism cause our President did promise transparency in the process and yet that was lost when the deals were being made. McCain is right on this one see: Obama promised Americans that CSPAN would cover negotiations on health care plan with all parties at the table so we can see what choices and deals are being made.

153 minutes: I thought Republican Eric Cantor and our President had a good discussion between the two which again highlighted those differences.

166 minutes: They discussed further those main differences and Biden attempts to downplay them a bit. Both sides make there points.

That is it for part 1. Will embed part 2 and have comments.

Part 2

Part 2 continues with some follow up comments from part 1 discussion.

41 minutes: A lot of talk concerning Medicare and Deficit which was quite interesting.

87:50 minutes: Republican John Boehner surfaces the issue of abortion in the health care bill. This is the only area that abortion was discussed so far. It was discussed for one minute by John and it is unfortunate cause it would have been interesting seeing the two sides discuss the issue of tax payer funding of abortion in the bill. Update at 177:50 minutes: Nancy Pelosi slams Boehner for claiming tax payer funding of abortion is in Senate health care bill. Unbelievable. She resided over the House bill which overwhelmingly passed the Stupak amendment which at least 240 members of her House deemed necessary to keep "current law" in the health care bill. An amendment which the Senate rejected. So 240 members of her House agree with Boehner and that includes some 60 or more Democrats. See Video: Stupak, Pitts and company make statements and answer questions about the passing of the bi-partisan pro-life amendment by a vote of 240 - 194 and Video: Minority leader in the House brings out the issue of tax payer funding of abortion at Health Care Summit and So what does pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak think of President Obama's health care proposal?

108 minutes: Talks on the uninsured.

119 minutes: I must admit that our President's voice is getting quite tiresome in this debate and in general. He really should have had others responding then just himself. I really think his voice has worn out on the American people and it is the same old arguments that just haven't worked which makes his voice even more annoying. It could be cause he lost a lot of credibility for various reasons last year. I don't know but it is getting tiresome at this point. I will love my President and pray for him but he really needs to get somebody elses voice out there.

121 minutes: It was refreshing at this point to have Waxman step in and make some points for the Democrats. I disagree but quite refreshing to here another voice that is fresh and new and passionate.

130 minutes: Republican explains why many are not accepting of the bill so far. Also, very interesting comments concerning this bill expanding Medicaid to get more people covered and if that is they way to go or no.

149:50 minutes: Even though I would disagree at least you finally have a Democrat that finds the debate constructive and explains briefly both sides and attacks the heart of the Republican side. Excellent rebuttal but still in disagreement.

153:30 minutes: Senate Minority leader McConnell brings in the will of the American people into the debate. For evidence of this see graphs below.

156:00 minutes: President Obama responds to McConnell to which I would respond it doesn't matter Americans oppose the overall health care plan and how our President is handling it. Not only that but just look to Virginia, New Jersey and the recent major upset in Massachusetts. Even Europe got it see BBC News on Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts: "...a shock victory...a huge blow...a humiliating of the biggest political upset in years...a referendum on his first year in office..."

Concerning our President's handling of Health Care

180 minutes: President makes a closing statement


Related: School choice works in DC at half the cost of public schools so why did Obama discontinue the program?

As you read through article below do watch this interesting video of the DC school voucher program.


Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2008

By John Robert Warren, University of Minnesota
Last Updated: February 2, 2010

School Choice Wisconsin (SCW) today released the third study by University of Minnesota Sociologist John Robert Warren showing that students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) graduate at a higher rate than students in the Milwaukee Public Schools. Further, Warren estimates that 3,352 additional Milwaukee students would have received diplomas between 2003 and 2008 if MPS graduation rates had matched those of MPCP students.

The study features six years of data, most recently finding that 77% of MPCP students graduated in 2007-2008, compared to 65% in MPS. The author makes adjustments for ninth grade retention, ensuring accuracy.

The study and release can be accessed at the links below or by clicking here and here.


Risk of Stillbirth 4 Times Higher After IVF

AARHUS, Denmark, February 22, 2010 ( - Women who become pregnant with a single fetus after in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have an increased risk of a stillbirth, according to new research out today.

The study of over 20,000 singleton pregnancies, published in Europe's leading reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction, found a four-fold increased risk of stillbirths for women who had IVF/ICSI compared with women who conceived spontaneously or after fertility treatment that did not involve IVF or ICSI.

Dr Kirsten Wisborg a consultant in the neonatal and intensive care unit at Aarhus University Hospital (Aarhus, Denmark), and colleagues analyzed data that had been collected prospectively from unselected, pregnant women taking part in the Aarhus Birth Cohort. The study included information on women booked for delivery between August 1989 and October 2006.

Out of a total of 20,166 singleton, first-time pregnancies, 16,525 (82%) were conceived spontaneously after less than 12 months, 2,020 (10%) after more than a year of trying (classified as sub-fertile), 879 (4%) conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment and 742 (4%) conceived after IVF/ICSI. There was a total of 86 stillbirths, giving an overall risk of stillbirth of 4.3 per thousand pregnancies.

The risk of stillbirth in women who conceived after IVF/ICSI was 16.2 per thousand; in women who conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment it was 2.3 per thousand; in fertile and sub-fertile women, the risk was 3.7 per thousand and 5.4 per thousand respectively.

Dr Wisborg said: "After adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, education, smoking habits and alcohol and coffee intake during pregnancy we found a significant, four-fold increased risk of stillbirth in women who conceived after IVF/ICSI compared with fertile women. The risk of stillbirth in sub-fertile women and women who conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment was not statistically significantly different from the risk in fertile women.

"Until now, there has been speculation that the increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as stillbirths, in assisted reproduction might be due to factors related to the underlying infertility of the couples. However, we found the risk was similar between sub-fertile couples, women who had conceived after non-IVF fertility treatment and fertile couples. This may indicate that the increased risk of stillbirth is not explained by infertility and may be due to other, as yet unexplained factors, such as the technology involved in IVF/ICSI or some physiological difference in the couples that require IVF/ICSI."



Click image to read letter but there is another page so click here for both pages letter.

Stupak is the pro-life democrat that got the Hyde amendment included in the House health care bill plan. See So what does pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak think of President Obama's health care proposal?.

We will see tomorrow if he is invited.


Video below from a Conservative Party member speech from back in October may give some further hints as to why people of faith in the UK do not take to well to the Labour Party. Video below and comments first posted at Values Voter News at Video of speech: Conservative party in the UK brings up the issue of the intolerance of people of faith under the Labour party's rule in Britain

Secularism not the British way, nor progressive nor conservative!!! Excellent

She may be discussing this issue Christian nurse in the UK ordered to remove cross from neck then forced to accept redeployment or this one Another UK council worker gets suspended. Bosses told him that even saying "God bless" was unacceptable. or maybe this one British nurse offers to pray for patient and then gets suspended in the name of equality and diversity. or no maybe this one Again, another employee in the UK gets disciplined for biblical views on sexuality. nope it's got to be this one Christian charity worker suspended after answering a colleagues questions about sexual ethics... no, no, no it's this one School receptionist faces sack over prayer request in UK oh forget it maybe it is these Muslim and Christian parents in London may face prosecution for keeping their 30 or so children from lessons promoting homosexuality... and Video of UK couple threatened with Hate Crime for asking library to have a book with another point of view on homosexuality and UK Boy Scout like Scout Association is under attack for pledging allegiance to God via Equality Bill and Christian hotel owners awaiting trial over an argument they had with Muslim guest and Christian doesn't get fired after all but barred from voting on cases. and Tax payer funded library in the UK allows mints to be passed out that mock Jesus but won't allow poster for church event for children and Update on Nurse in the UK suspended and told he can't say "God Bless". Now, he has been sacked. and 5 workers in the last 4 months sacked or threatened in the UK over religious beliefs. The latest a nurse of 40 years experience. all very recent occurrences in the UK which most occurred this year under a government ran by the Labour party.

Maybe what the Cardinal said at: Excellent points made by Cardinal at Oxford University. Link to his full speech here.... is reasonable.

Many parents seek to home school their children due to their conflicting beliefs with that of secularized tax payer funded schools. But it appears to many that this secularized governmental intrusion into the public sector is now attempting to even intrude into these homes. Where can they go to hide from such a overreaching secular government? See video below from The Christian Institute in the UK:

Who but knows that under the Conservative Party which in above video has shown itself much more sympathetic to religious freedom issues may gain some ground for freedom in the UK see: (First Canada, then UK and EU, then Japan and now Germany's recent elections give another all time worst blow to liberal politicians).

Another point of interest is that a member of the Conservative Party spoke out concerning liberal media bias at the BBC in the UK. This is good that there is some concern for fairness within the party. The BBC is a big source of media worldwide and so to have a party that is concerned about balance in coverage should be a good thing especially since it is funded with really no choice by British people if they want broadcast television at about a $6.8 billion dollar budget equating to about $226 a year per person if my online currency converter converted properly from pounds to dollars. For more on conservative party member concern of BBC see: Conservative party member in the UK says BBC must tackle its "innate liberal bias". and also see: A family judge in the UK blasts the BBC for moving documentaries on family breakdown out of primetime slot.

For what is going on in America over that issue see: March on Media 10/17/2009 event web site moves into the top 100,000 web sites in the US similar to the 04/15/2009 Tea Party event web sites. and for "A possible tri-partisan solution for those who have access to cable news or for those who can access cable news see: Public opinion in accuracy of news stories are at a 20 year low but Values Voter News has a suggestion."


Related: Video: Daniel Hannan on the demise of Europe and "Time for a British Tea Party"
Videos: Daniel Hannan with some fun Conservative British political humour
Conservative MEP in the UK uses the recent victory of the people in Massachusetts and American history to inspire a revolution of the voters in Europe vs. the EU
Last year MEP Hannan in the #2 Top Rated Video of All Time on YouTube in the UK in the category of News and Politics predicted voters would vote conservative and he was right on target. See First Canada, then UK and EU, then Japan and now Germany's recent elections give another all time worst blow to liberal politicians and UK's labour party takes the worst showing since 1918 as conservatives gain ground. YouTube video of Daniel Hannan MEP for one reason why.

Now the same MEP Hannan again predicts voters will vote for conservative smaller government in Europe as he references the recent victory for smaller government in Massachusetts. And do give a listen to the rest of these quick one minute speeches by MEP Hannan.

Again, MEP Hannan references Massachusetts.

Here are some further interesting and recent one minute speeches by MEP Hannan. "That which nobody owns nobody will take care of." Excellent argument for property rights.

And the latest speech at MEP Hannan's YouTube site.


As you read below post many conservative Americans may enjoy this speech given by conservative MEP in Europe.

Related: Ministries from across America respond to Haiti. Just check out these email updates in the past couple of days from various conservative Christian groups alone.

Back in July of 2008 was posted a post at Values Voter News titled US stinginess in foreign aide?/Organized Christianity abuses power and money?/Big Business' portrayed as corrupt? in which was stated in warning to the message in the post that:

"This is not to say Americans are better then others in generosity in foreign aid for they are still 6th not number 1 in foreign aide when counting in other then governmental aid but rather this is to be viewed as a response to American criticism that we are dead last in foreign aid. It is to balance out some of the media negativity with some interesting points on the otherside of the issue..."

Haiti is another example that is proving the point in that post. Namely, that the US gives as much as any other country for foreign aid per person when you tally in both governmental aid and non governmental aid.

American charities have raised $774 million to Haiti as of 02/17/2010 according to tally by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. This only accounts for donations to some 40 US non-profit organizations. I reviewed the list to see if Operation Blessing or Samaritans Purse were on that list and they were not. These three good sized charities are not even included. So this tally of $774 million is quite short of what the actual donations are especially when you also consider the churches that are helping out and missionaries.

As far as corporate America the donations as of 02/17/2010 equate to about $146.8 million according to US Chamber of Commerce.

So as of 02/17/2010 there has been a tally of $920.8 million in aid to Haiti. Again, this does not include many other organizations and the tally of church groups or other small groups like the one in the video below:

Rescue Haiti's Children: How the Body of Christ Has Come Together In Haiti from Douglas Phillips on Vimeo.


Related: Video: Stupak, Pitts and company make statements and answer questions about the passing of the bi-partisan pro-life amendment by a vote of 240 - 194
Stupak warns that if they strip the pro-life amendment out of House health care bill "there will be hell to pay" but the other side is just as vehement or are they?  

Just in from Bart Stupak is a pro-life Democrat that is a key Democrat in the House. reports that: Bart Stupak Opposes Obama Health Care Plan Over Its Massive Abortion Funding

Washington, DC ( -- Congressman Bart Stupak, the Michigan lawmaker whose group of pro-life Democrats could decide the fate of the pro-abortion, government-run health care bill in the House, says he doesn't like the new health care plan President Barack Obama unveiled yesterday because it funds abortions.

With the House barely passing the bill the first time, thanks to votes from Stupak and 10-12 pro-life Democrats who were pleased Stupak's abortion-funding ban was a part of it, where the lawmaker stands is important.

With the Senate bill having no ban, and Obama's plan for changes adding more abortion funding to the mix, Stupak and his colleagues have promised to vote no if the final version of the bill funds abortions, as will likely be the case.

Stupak released a statement that American Spectator reporter Philip Klein posted on the conservative web site.

"Unfortunately, the President's proposal encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion," Stupak says. "The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable."

"While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform," Stupak adds.

Klein writes that, under the controversial reconciliation process, the Senate bill will have a tough time getting through the House.

While "some commentators see a growing momentum for finishing the health care legislation that was put on life support after Sen. Scott Brown’s surprise victory in Massachusetts," Klein maintains "it’s difficult to see how Democrats cobble together enough votes to pass a final health care bill in the House."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats got the House bill approved on a 220-215 margin -- only after the Stupak amendment was added to ban abortion funding.

Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, the only Republican to back the bill, has since said he would vote no because of the abortion funding.

"In addition, Florida’s Robert Wexler unexpectedly resigned, Rep. Neil Abercrombie announced plans to retire at the end of this month to run for governor of Hawaii and Rep. John Murtha passed away," Klein notes. "Taken together, that brings Pelosi down to 216 votes -- which would be insufficient to pass a health care bill."

Add Stupak and his pro-life colleagues to the mix and Pelosi stands to lose another 10-12 votes, Klein observes.

"The biggest problem she faces is that President Obama’s proposal maintains the abortion provision in the Senate bill," he writes.

"When the bill passed the House the first time around, 41 Democrats voted for the health care bill only after voting for the Stupak amendment. Any of them could explain switching to a “no” vote on a final bill by citing abortion funding," Klein said.

Also, Klein believes that the mantra from Obama and top pro-abortion Democrats -- that the health care bill may as well be passed anyway because Democrats will be attacked on it in the elections -- won't sell with many Democrats facing particularly tough re-election campaigns.

"The problem with this analysis is that even if one were to accept the fact that jamming through a massive and highly unpopular piece of legislation could be a political winner for the Democratic Party as a whole, it doesn't mean that it’s necessarily good for each individual Democratic member of Congress. This is especially true for the Democrats who hold seats in conservative districts," he says.

"Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill, 31 of them were elected in districts that went for John McCain in 2008," Klein notes. "Given that a Republican who campaigned on being a vote against the health care bill was just elected to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in a state that went for Obama by 26 points, it’s hard to see why anybody in a McCain district who already voted "no" would decide switch their vote to “yes.”"

He concludes: "None of this is to say that it’s literally impossible for Pelosi to find the votes necessary to pass a health care bill. There are several retiring members who may be willing to vote for it because they don't have to stand for reelection, some may be won over by provisions in the latest version of the bill, and a few may be willing to take suicide votes for the team. But this week’s political theater shouldn't obscure how difficult it will be for Obama to get a comprehensive health care bill across the finish line."


Don't Tread on US: Signs of a 21st Century Political AwakeningClick image to the left to purchase book on

“Some say we patriots are temporary pains on the political scene—that our passions are fleeting fires. But I know fighters. And we are like those who ignited the light of liberty at America’s inception. We are those who weather the storms of oppression, and who can persevere until we triumph over tyranny.” —Chuck Norris, Foreword.

Tea Party: The Documentary Film
Another great purchase would be the newly released documentary revealing in video what this awakening is all about. Click on image to the right to purchase Tea Party documentary film at

A Tea Party organizer just one an election in a Democrat controlled area in New York. See Tea Party organizer wins in New York in district held by Democrats for that last 13 years and only the 3rd Republican in last 37 years.. Scott Brown who produced one of the greatest political upsets of all time in Massachusetts spoke at a Tea Party event in Massachusetts. See Video: Check out these videos from Tea Party endorsed Scott Brown's rally in Massachusetts as Obama campaigns for Coakley on Sunday and lastly Tea party movement is making it on national polls and fairing well.  

And don't forget about our President waving his tea bag on his 100th day anniversary last year.

I also found this video that was quite interesting as it quotes Patrick Henry's famous speech. "Give me liberty or Give me death"


Related: Authorities raid abortion clinic after lady dies from an abortion and finds frozen fetuses in clinic

The latest undercover video exposing Planned Parenthood's covering up of older men taking advantage of under age girls.


But let us review the prior videos in various areas of the country. And I do not think this undercover group is done and I am sure more is to come.

Bloomington, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

Tucson, Arizona

Phoenix, Arizona

Memphis, Tennessee

Brimingham, Alabama


Found video at Two dozen frozen fetuses found at Philadelphia abortion clinic


From the CBO blog...

The Obama Administration’s Health Care Proposal

This morning the Obama Administration released a description of its health care proposal, and CBO has already received several requests to provide a cost estimate for that proposal. We had not previously received the proposal, and we have just begun the process of reviewing it—a process that will take some time, given the complexity of the issues involved. Although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bills passed by the House and the Senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. Moreover, preparing a cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions, and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all of the provisions. Therefore, CBO cannot provide a cost estimate for the proposal without additional detail, and, even if such detail were provided, analyzing the proposal would be a time-consuming process that could not be completed this week.


Below from The Heritage Foundation and New York Times concurs see Abortion funding in Obama healthcare bill worse than Senate's

New But Unimproved: Abortion Funding in the White House Health Plan

The President promised that under health reform taxpayers would not be forced to fund abortion. Not true.

The new health care outline posted by the White House this morning appears to aggravate concerns about a new abortion funding scheme that is not covered by any limitation, including the traditional Hyde amendment governing annual appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Stupak-Pitts amendment adopted by the House of Representative last November in its version of health reform. Instead, the White House plan would invest $11 billion in an expansion of Community Health Centers, others known as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), with no limitation at all.

This $11 billion price tag is $2.5 billion higher than called for by the Senate bill approved on Christmas Eve. That legislation provided for $7 billion in fresh appropriations for operating funds and another $1.5 billion in spending for construction of FQHCs (both sums over five years). Because this money would be directly appropriated if the Senate bill is adopted and signed into law, it does not need to be included in the annual Labor-Health and Human Services spending bill. As a result, the Hyde Amendment abortion funding limit would not apply to these FQHC funds. Nor would the comprehensive Stupak-Pitts funding limit, unless the House-passed language of that amendment is specifically included in the Senate bill updated by today’s White House proposal.

The 11-page White House summary of President Obama’s proposal does not mention inclusion of the Stupak-Pitts amendment in any final bill. Given the opposition of Democratic leaders to the amendment, it is reasonable to assume that the dramatic expansion of FQHC’s, which already number 1,250, could go hand in hand with the expansion of abortion at these centers. The FQHCs are being lobbied to include abortion among their “prevention” services, and the underlying federal authorizing statute does not bar them from doing so. Therefore, the impact of this new and independent funding stream on expanding taxpayer-funded abortion could be immense.


Excellent!!!! A highlight from CPAC.


Last Week in Review

I was responding to a poster on a forum that was making a case for same sex marriage and thought it may be of interest at Argument for same sex marriage and a response to that argument. Also, see Same Sex Marriage running faith based adoption charities out of Massachusetts now out of DC.

Also, see how President Obama makes an excellent argument for a Republican Tea Party influence take over of Congress in 2010 at President Obama points us in the right direction as he answers the question: Why should Americans trust Democrats to reduce government spending and debt?


Must read comments from Democrat Senator Bayh who recently announced his retirement   

Democrat Senator Bayh on CBS News said “If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Sen. Bayh before retirement announcement: “Whenever you have just the furthest-left elements of the [Democratic] party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country, that’s not going to work too well.”

Canada's Conservative Party recently won big and is making a big difference on abortion funding

Update on debate between liberals and conservatives in Canada over abortion in initiatives to promote women and children's health.

Tea Party organizer wins in Democrat area of New York

Tea Party organizer wins in New York in district held by Democrats for that last 13 years and only the 3rd Republican in last 37 years. and related to this is the last Kennedy is retiring President and CEO of PhRMA steps down after committing some $100 million to help ObamaCare as last Kennedy after Scott Brown victory steps down.  


Video: The story of Dr Ben Carson awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 and what empowers him

Videos: Olympic athletes discuss the importance of faith at their jobs

Young lady attacks pro-life at knife point then 3 months later changes heart and says “If they weren’t there, I probably would have gone through with it and regretted it for the rest of my life..."



Video: Geert Wilders opening statement in trial against him for his film FITNA

Video: Thought provoking video skeptical of population control advocates 

Pro-lifers in Spain generate one million signatures to petition after a million show up to protest 6 months before against new abortion laws


Audio evidence of of abortionist in California violating the law.

Video: Very interesting street conversation between church leaders and pro-life protester protesting the church to do more about abortion

Videos: Check out new pro-life website called 


Video: Brian Riedle on CBN News and why tough choices will need to be made on the budget and deficit

Check out this forced unionization story from John Stossel in Michigan and further corruption from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


Breaking: Five Muslim Soldiers Arrested at Fort Jackson in South Carolina on Christmas Eve

Taxes reports that tax payers paid federal workers more than $400 million to stay home on last week's snow days


The maternal mortality rate declined from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country. So what's the secret?

Global Warming

Global Warming: The debate is not over says scientists and Phil Jones the very director of the Climatic Research Unit

Liberal Media Bias

Liberal Media Bias highlighted once again as CBS Early Show reports on latest CBS News/New York Times poll and leaves out valuable information.


I was on a forum recently and had an opportunity to respond to an interesting post and question. I wanted to log this for future reference.

The Title of the post that the poster posted was Bad Logic vs Homosexual Marriage in which he started the line of posts with this argument to which I responded.


Hello, folks! I intend to tackle some of the common mistakes the "protect mariage" people make. just for the record, I am NOT homosexual and I am pretty religious (LDS actually).

To maintain a state of inequality of rights (gays can't marry, heterosexuals can), the people wanting to maintain that inequality have the burden of proof as to show why such an inequality is just and should be practiced in law. For example, everybody has the right to freedom until proven otherwise. If I murder someone and you prove it, then my right to freedom should be taken away; this seems nothing but fair. However, I find no such proof at all in the side of the ones making the argument that homosexuals should not marry.

1) "Marriage is instituted by God and should be as He commanded: between a man and a woman."
That is true and I agree with this. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. But first, we have to realize we are talking not about a religious institution such as it is in the Church but a legal institution. We are talking about changing marriage as a legal institution and not a religious one. However, the discussion is NOT about what "should be" but about what "must be allowed". For example, we believe God commanded us NOT to worship other idols; so, since God commanded us not to worship other idols, should we make it illegal to worship idols? No, because, even if we do not agree with that practice, we must give equal rights to everybody for choosing whatever they want. Thus, we must allow homosexuals to marry even if we do not agree with it since they should be allowed the same legal freedoms that we have.

"But marriage is NOT a right; therefore, we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences."
let's assume that it is not a right. Having a driver's license is NOT a right either, does that mean we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences? "If you are homosexual you can't have a driver's license"? Attending a higher education institution is not a right, are educational institutions, then, justified in discriminating based on sexual preferences? of course not.

2) "To allow same-sex marriages is to attack the God-instituted form of marriage"
Not true. It is to change a legal institution, not a religious one.

3) "If we allow same-sex marriage to be legal Churches will loose their right to marry heterosexuals only"
Completely incorrect. Churches are allowed to practice whatever they want. I can make a Church that decides only to marry white people and no one can sue me over it. Religious institutions have always maintained such freedoms.
4) "Our kids will be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriages in schools"
Probably, but any parent has the right to choose what topic not be taught to his child ('evolution' is one example). Also, even if children hear it in class, parents have ALL day of the rest of their lives to teach children that what they heard is not correct, that simple. There is NO evidence whatsoever that that kind of information will turn your child gay or lesbian.
5) "The people, through a democratic process, have chosen already that they want traditional marriage and some people in Government want to overthrow them"
Correct, because voting on someone else's rights should not be based on majorities. Example: in the 1800's most people wanted slavery, should slavery be adopted because of that? Can people in a state vote on someone else's freedom to marry? Should the people vote if they want interracial marriage to be allowed? Should the people vote if they want Protestantism as the official church of the State? Did Hitler had a legitimate right in murdering so many Jews because most of his people wanted it? the answer to all of these is NO!, because we do not choose on other people's rights democratically.
6) "Our freedom to choose what we teach our children is being threaten", "our freedom to exercise our religion is being threaten", "our freedom to practice marriage as we want to is being threaten", etc, etc.
Of course, none of these is true at all since the issue is if they (homosexuals) can marry among themselves, not if you can marry at all.
7) "They are attacking the traditional form of marriage"
This argument from tradition is very interesting since people actually believe that because something is 'traditional' or has been that way for many years it is therefore more correct. At one time, the traditional 'voters' were white males, does that mean it was correct to not let others vote? the traditional way of doing business at one time was through slavery, does give any support to the moral validity of slavery?

so, I hope we can have an interesting discussion to all those that decide to participate. however, I do ask that we may be respectful and present well-thought ideas, please!

with love to all, elguanteloko

My Response:

I am a Christian and so I believe we both agree on what God says about marriage. And so I do vote accordingly and I believe it is how I should vote. I do not believe that God wants me to hate those I disagree with so I don't. I also believe that abortion is murder based off of some scriptures and I also believe it is wrong to murder period based off of the ten commandments which reveals the character of God and I believe there is nothing wrong with voting according to these values.

I also believe there are good reasons for why God says such and such and I trust that there is and don't always require a reason why from God. After all He is God and that is good enough for me. Sometimes we get to see the evidence of why as we see that sex outside of marriage is quite costly in many ways to society and therefore have tangible evidence as to why. The same I would conclude with homosexual relationships. It is not the love between the two that is concerning me. But the actual act of sex.

I think the biggest issue for Christians and non-christians alike is the issue of how same sex marriages will effect our public institutions the biggest one being public schools. If homosexual marriages are normalized via legalization of them then that means a publicly funded school, organization or whatever would have to treat homosexuality as perfectly normal. Many people do not have a problem with a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman. In the Bible you have Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan. What most do have a problem with is the unnaturalness of the actual act of sex that homosexuality produces in the minds of voters and that is concerning for many and especially parents attempting to raise their children with the best in mind for their children.

Many parents don't want their boys nor the boys around their boys to think that homosexual sex is ok, safe and harmless. Many parents don't even care for comprehensive sex ed let alone now to have to include this type of sex ed. They actually allow parents to opt out of these classes and now to add homosexuality to it all. Even male homosexual acts that males perform on one another when performed on women are harmful. I remember this day a teenage girl telling me that it was quite painful for her. It is simply not natural and the unnaturalness of the acts of sex is just not acceptable for most. I think when people think about how it effects the public institutions that is where most say no.

You also have the concern that homosexuality is not safe not only because of the act of sex but also the diseases associated with it. There are enough diseases going on around out there that another one or encouraging further ways to spread them around is just not the direction many wish to go with it.

But anyways. I typed this in between calls and is rather quick but just some points of interest and concerns when it comes to same sex marriage.

PS I did not intend to imply that Naomi and Ruth or David and Jonathan are homosexuals. A man can love a man and a woman and woman. My wife loves her best friend and I love mine and they are the same sex as we are but that doesn't mean we have sex with each other. Nor does it mean that David and Jonathan or Naomi or Ruth had sex. If God wanted us to learn from those passages that they did then He would have clearly made that evident and even if one wants to conclude from a passage here or there that they did it means nothing. David did alot of bad stuff in his life that the scriptures didn't specifically condemn and so did Abraham and many others but it is clear from the whole context of scripture that they did things that were not what God wanted them to do.

Anyways, thanks for your post. Take care...

For those who are considering that maybe homosexuality is not what God has planned for you or that you are struggling with this temptation which is what I believe it is basically a temptation to do what God did not originally design nor desire us to do much like any heterosexual sin of lust or pornography etc etc see

And if you are a homosexual that is offended by what I say I mean no hate whatsoever. I believe we can agree to disagree and yet still tolerate and love one another. Take care all, on both sides....