SCOTUS Nominee Sotomayor: You Decide

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

So it is to her words -- the ones quoted above and others -- to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law.

The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?

The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality -- of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all -- that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice -- that can’t be predetermined by wealth or privilege -- as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that, by weakening judges’ adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

The “Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made”

How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge’s fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating.”

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide

If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge’s bench is “where policy is made,” what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter -- that a “wise Latina” would make a better judge than a white male -- has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor’s comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of “you read, you decide” I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn’t as damaging as the Judge’s “wise Latina” comment -- it’s worse.

“Our Gender and National Origins May and Will Make a Difference in Our Judging”

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."


"Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."


"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor’s speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.

“Equal Justice Under Law” Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court

The central principle of American justice -- and perhaps the single, great idea of America -- is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words “all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal.” It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building -- and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups -- or, as the President would say, shows “empathy” -- he or she violates this central American principle.

One Group’s “Empathy” is Another Group’s Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.

When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group’s “empathy” becomes another group’s injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.

An Opportunity to Have a Debate About Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci

The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor’s ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.

Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?

In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It’s no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

WRITTEN by Newt Gingrich as "Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: You Read, You Decide" at Human Events on June 3rd, 2009

SCOTUS Cannot Be Reshaped Overnight

There is a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. There are things that courts are not supposed to see or recognize when making their decisions — the race you belong to, whether you are rich or poor, and other personal things that could bias decisions by judges and juries.

It is an ideal that a society strives for, even if particular judges or juries fall short of that ideal. Now, however, Pres. Barack Obama has repudiated the ideal itself by saying that he wants to appoint judges with “empathy” for particular groups.

This was not an isolated slip of the tongue. Barack Obama said the same thing during last year’s election campaign. Moreover, it is completely consistent with his behavior and associations over a period of years — and inconsistent with fundamental principles of American government and society.

Nor is this President Obama’s only attempt to remake American society. Barack Obama’s vision of America is one in which a president of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell bankers how to bank, control the medical system, and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor most other politicians have any expertise or experience.

The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.

Appointing to the federal courts — including the Supreme Court — judges who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.

If all this can be washed down with pious talk about “empathy,” so much the better for those who want to remake America. Now that the Obama administration has a congressional majority that is virtually unstoppable, and media that are wholly uncritical, the chances of preventing the president from putting someone on the Supreme Court who shares his desire to turn America into a different country are slim or none.

The only thing on the side of those who understand this, and who oppose it, is time. Reshaping the Supreme Court cannot be done overnight, the way Congress passed a vast spending bill in two days.

Replacing Supreme Court justices is something that can be done only one at a time and at unpredictable intervals. What this means is that senators who do not have enough votes to stop an Obama nominee to the High Court from being confirmed nevertheless have an opportunity — and a duty — to alert the public to the dangers of what is being done.

This does not mean turning confirmation hearings into a circus or a kangaroo court with mud-slinging at judicial nominees, the way Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were smeared. But it also does not mean taking the path of least resistance by quietly voting for people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who treat the Constitution as a grant of arbitrary power to themselves, rather than a restriction of power on the government as a whole.

It is all too easy to say “A president has the right to appoint the kind of people he wants to the Supreme Court.” He does. But that does not mean that those who don’t have the votes to stop dangerous nominees from being confirmed are obliged to vote for them or to stand mute.

Since Justice David Souter is likely to be replaced by another liberal, it is all too easy to say that it is no big deal. But with all the indications we have already as to how the Obama administration is trying to remake America on many fronts, the time to begin alerting the public to the dangers is now.

Given the age and health of some other Supreme Court justices, more replacements are likely during Obama’s time in the White House. Time gives an opportunity to mobilize public opinion and perhaps change the composition of the Senate that will confirm the next judicial nominees.

But time by itself does nothing. It is what we do with time that matters.

WRITTEN by Thomas Sowell for the National Review as 'Time Is On Our Side' and published on May 7th, 2009

Will April's Showers Bring May Flowers?

April was a pretty rough month in any way that you want to size it up. Record spending, debt, unemployment. A major shift towards socialism by our government. Increased attacks on the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals and liberal thinkers. And then finally ending with an attack by a Swine Flu pandemic. It's all a bit much for a normally happy soul such as mine to take in for one big reason. There is no end in sight. President Obama was only recently elected, and just took office three months ago. He still has more than three years at a minimum in office, and if the magnitude, scope, and pace of his 'Change' continues as it has thus far it will be an agonizing three years. One thing that I have come to appreciate over the course of these past three months is the utter joy and euphoria that Obama elicits in his followers. It makes me jealous, because frankly I have never, ever had that feeling for a President of the United States. Forget Kennedy and Johnson, I was just a baby. As a young child, Nixon and Ford certainly were not high on my priority list. I liked Jimmy Carter at first. He spoke to my youthful desire for progressivism. He was a minister and brought a certain amount of credibility and morality to the office, which was important to the country after the dishonesty of Nixon's Watergate. And he was intelligent too, a genius, at least that's the rep that the media was passing around. It was Jimmy Carter that began to ruin things for my early liberalism. By the end of his term he was proving to be a major letdown, and I'm still trying to figure out that whole 'genius' thing. His and liberalism's weaknesses were on full display in the face of the emergence of radical Islam, Soviet aggression, and America's energy problems. But still, politics and these major issues at this point were still only news stories to me, fleeting images on the TV set, and I would quickly change the channel to a ballgame or a comedy and go back to my own inner liberal feelings. During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan was king, but I didn't support the kingdom. I didn't vote for 'The Gipper' either time. Here was the first time in my lifetime where it was obvious to me that a large portion of America was feeling something for a President that I just wasn't getting. It was disconcerting to me, because I was beginning in my 20's to actually pay more attention to national and world affairs. I was a liberal Democrat and became a joiner, with paid memberships in 'Greenpeace' and 'Amnesty International', and with subscriptions to 'Rolling Stone' and 'U.S. News & World Report', and enjoying anti-establishment music videos on the new media outlet of MTV such as Genesis' "Land of Confusion". But something began to change. The optimism of the 'Morning in America' days that Reagan led, the return of outward signs of American patriotism, the general feelings of positivism were creeping into my psyche a little at a time. His demand that the Soviets "Tear down this wall!" followed by that event actually happening was a watershed moment, the moment when I began to think to myself "Why are there so many millions of people seeing what I am not?" and I began to realize that these folks couldn't possibly all be evil or idiots, and I actually began to open my mind to thoughts and ideas outside of my previously grounded liberal thinking. But it still wasn't a transition. I still voted for Dukakis in 1988, because I simply was not ready to vote for George H.W. Bush for President. He was as establishment as you could possibly get, and a former head of the C.I.A. to boot, and I simply did not trust a former head of a spy agency to be my leader. When he eventually led us into the Gulf War, all his faults were on display in my mind. I didn't understand the whole Iraq issue. My naive liberalism still had me being sold by those talking heads and celebrities who lamented our 'going to war over nothing but oil' and other such talk. In 1992, with my own life going through major changes on many fronts, I remained a liberal thinker for the final election. When Bill Clinton was elected, it was the first time in my life to that point that my candidate had won, and I was excited. His youthful exuberance was infectious, and I genuinely believed that he would make things better. But I also by this time was already in the habit of looking at issues deeper than the surface, reading and researching major issues beyond just what I was being sold on what I increasingly was noticing was an obviously biased mass media in newspapers and on television. I hated the idea that these folks seemed more like cheerleaders whenever a Democrat was involved, and like antagonists when a Republican was involved. It was all so obvious, and it was turning me off. When I realized that all of the positive economic turns of the early Clinton years were going to happen no matter who was President, that they had actually begun in the final months of the Bush administration, and yet the Dems were trying to take credit, I began to experience my first bit of cynicism towards my party and its politicians. By the end of Clinton's first four years the transition was complete. My own personal scales had tilted towards conservatism over liberalism, and as Newt Gingrich led the 'Republican Revolution' of 1994, I was amazingly in tune with their message and supportive of this man who just a couple years earlier I would have viewed as a negative influence. I was still a Democrat, but I did not vote for Clinton in 1996. The second Clinton term was what fully shoved me over to the conservative side, and my final flip to an actual change of party to the Republican side. Still, even with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, I was not excited. Seeing Al Gore for the quack that he has turned out to be, I was simply unbelievably relieved with the narrow outcome in Bush's favor. Bush was not the conservative that I was becoming, but he was much more tilted in that direction than Gore and his followers would have been. The attacks of 9/11 and President Bush's outstanding leadership in the following months and years cemented my support for him, and helped cement my conservative beliefs. But he never elicited that outright joy as a follower or supporter. And obviously Obama will never elicit those feelings for me. And yet I look around at his followers and I realize something. His supporters are every bit as enthused and enthralled as Reagan's were back in the 1980's, and I was on the outside back then as well. I don't get it, but I am trying to learn more about Obama's programs and ideas beyond what the media on both sides is trying to feed the public. So far, the more that I learn the worse it looks to me, but I am going to try to keep learning and stay open. The showers of April turn to flowers in nature in May. We can only hope that the showers brought on our nation by the early Obama actions in April will bloom into flowers in May, but I don't hold out hope. May has not started well, with an announced SCOTUS opening and the specter of the likely appointment to the Supreme Court later in the year of what will almost definitely be its most liberal member ever. The Swine Flu is still advancing, with a possible retreat for the summer but a return in the fall. Chrysler joins the growing list of formerly private businesses in the auto, banking, insurance and other industries now controlled by the government. It is still raining. But I won't let it get to me. One thing that age and experience teach you is that if you wait, the sun will indeed come out tomorrow. There are signs of hope. We have rid ourselves of Senator Arlen Specter, a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who saw the writing on the wall that we were going to dump him in the upcoming primary and who then ran for the Democratic cover like a coward. And I still hold out hope that one day I will have that President come along who inspires me and elicits that passionate adulation of feeling to go along with a support for their policies and direction that Obama's supporters feel today. Someone like Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, or Sarah Palin. You gotta keep that smile on your face and in your heart, and keep your own dreams alive.

Hands That Shed Innocent Blood

For the past couple of weeks this 'Sunday Sermon' series (each entry can be read by clicking on the label at the bottom of this post) has been focusing on Proverbs 6:16-19 which covers the six things that the Lord hates, and a 7th which is an abomination. The 3rd item in this list would be "hands that shed innocent blood" which is sadly ironic considering Friday night's murder of Philadelphia police officer John Pawlowski. Whether or not John's killer will end up spending an eternity in hell, whether anyone who takes an innocent human life will suffer that fate, is not for us to say or know. But one thing that Proverbs makes undeniably clear is that this murder of innocents is particularly detestable to God Himself. On Friday night, John Pawlowski was an innocent man. Perhaps more than that, he was working actively to try and help keep peace and order in his community. He was a police officer in an increasingly violent major American city that is itself ironically nicknamed 'The City of Brotherly Love'. It is a moniker that is no longer appropriate. John and his partner exited their police vehicle after being flagged down to handle a disturbance on the highway. While handling this dispute, one of the individuals involved reached into his own pocket and shot right through his jacket, killing John Pawlowski there and then. Innocent blood once again shed in one of the acts that God hates. Each year, hundreds and hundreds of Philadelphians are murdered in cold blood by their fellow citizens. Webster defines 'murder' as "unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought." Sometimes as a legal definition it has been divided into 'degrees' of murder based on the intent of the killer as well as other accompanying actions. But it is not only murder which sheds innocent blood. The taking of another life is, as a legal matter, usually acceptable to the larger society when that action comes in self-defense or in a justifiable military or police action. A police officer who kills someone that is trying to kill that officer or someone else is justified. A member of the military fighting in a war in defense of the overall freedom and liberty of others is justified. A regular citizen taking the life of someone who is actively attempting to take the life of that person is justified. There are times in each of those actions when the taking of life is not justified. Any time that any of those actions is taken and innocent blood is shed, this God hates. A military or police action that results in the death of someone truly innocent, what is sometimes referred to as 'collateral damage', is no different to God just because the intent of the actor did not involve killing those innocents. That isn't to say that the person acting in what most would deem to be a just manner, and who in doing so takes the life of an innocent by mistake or happenstance, will answer to God for that life in eternity. But it is nonetheless something that God hates, and it is something that we should always take the time to evaluate within our own conscience. There is no one on earth more innocent than a tiny child, one that has had no opportunity to commit evil. Yet the fact is that over 11 million Americans have had their innocent blood shed in the womb just since the turn of the century in the act of abortion. Hundreds of millions of Americans have been murdered in the womb since the SCOTUS decision of Roe vs. Wade legalized this type of killing. God does not distinguish using human terms such as 'legal' or 'moral', He is concerned with 'innocence', and there is no one more innocent than a baby in the womb. To take such a life, one that has done nothing wrong, one that is rarely threatening the life of the mother, may indeed be the most selfish and immoral act someone can take. It most certainly is the shedding of innocent blood, no matter how we might try to justify it in our own minds and to our own conscience. Catholic and most Christian morality speaks to the taking of innocent blood in the topics of murder, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide as always wrong. Certainly God sees all of these situations as resulting in the shedding of innocent blood, which He hates. Be it that of an innocent police officer just doing his job of protecting and serving others, or an innocent baby in the womb, God hates the shedding of innocent blood as much as He hates anything. NOTE: This series from Proverbs will continue with the 4th item as next week's entry in the 'Sunday Sermon' series.

Obama-Dem Mistake #2

It's bad enough that the United States supports by law the murder of our most innocent citizens, the helpless babies aborted by the millions each year simply to make their parents lives a bit easier. As we discussed last week during the 'March for Life' recognition, with the 'Roe vs. Wade' decision by the SCOTUS in 1973 the U.S. began officially supporting the legality of most forms of abortion. But now we are no longer happy with actively supporting this policy creating a culture of death in our own country. Now we are actively supporting the policy worldwide, not just with ideals, but with taxpayer dollars. During the administration of perhaps the greatest President of the last century, Ronald Reagan, the 'Great Communicator' instituted what became known as the 'Mexico City Policy'. In this policy, Reagan made it clear that any recipient of U.S. foreign aid would not be permitted to promote abortion as a method of family planning. According to ABC News, the American "government under Reagan would not provide funding for family planning services to clinics or groups that offered abortion-related services overseas." When Bill Clinton was elected the policy was overturned, but it was reinstated under President George W. Bush and has been in place for the past eight years. In renewing the policy, President Bush stated "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." This past week, on the January 22nd anniversary of the 'Roe' decision, new U.S. President Barack Obama again reversed the policy. In announcing his decision, Obama once again made the classic liberal Democrat philosophical and moral mistake. He only recognized one party in this process when he said that the decision "protects women's health and reproductive freedom", ignoring the rights and the very life of the unborn child who it is his sworn duty to protect to the best of his ability. The closing of Guantanamo Bay highlighted in last week's 'Obama-Dem Mistake #1' article is likely to result in American deaths. This decision on allowing taxpayer funding of overseas abortions will absolutely result in the deaths of Americans and foreigners. It is hard to believe that any self-respecting Catholic could possibly support Obama or any congressional Democrat who would actively and outwardly support the murder of innocents as a key part of their agenda. It is another clear difference in liberal and conservative positions in American politics. It is a moral stain on the American way of life. And it is clearly the 'Obama-Dem Mistake #2'. As each one is highlighted and explained you can click on the below label of that name to see the full listing of the accumulated mistakes of the Obama administration and the Democratic congress that is supporting them.

Marching For Life

January 22nd, 1973 was one of the worst dates in the history of the United States of America. On that date 36 years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered its opinion in the case of 'Roe vs. Wade'. According to the SCOTUS decision, most laws restricting abortion in America violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling basically overturned all state and federal laws restricting abortions. It centrally held that a mother could abort her pregnancy for any reason up until the point at which the baby, referred to in the ruling by its scientific developmental stage name 'fetus', became 'viable'. It defined viability as the baby having the potential to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid, and placed this term at between 24-28 weeks. The court also held that abortion after viability must also be available in order to protect a woman's health, and this 'health' was defined broadly in a companion case called 'Doe vs. Bolton'. The court based its ruling on its desire to protect personal freedoms and privacy. A woman should be able to make medical decisions involving her health along with her doctor, and the government should in no way be interfering in this process. Of course never anywhere in their ruling did the court recognize the very apparent fact that there is not just one life, not just one person's health, being affected by a decision to abort. There is a baby alive inside of the mother. Unfortunately for that baby, it can not yet speak for itself. It cannot stand up for its own rights. It cannot vote for politicians who will support its cause. And there is, of course, only one 'cause' for which these babies are fighting at this early stage of their development - their very lives. A year after the 'Roe v. Wade' ruling was handed down a group of grassroots Americans who recognized the fundamental importance of standing up for these lives got together and organized a relatively small memorial. On January 22nd, 1974 the very first 'March for Life' took place with 20,000 participants marching on the U.S. Capitol in protest of the SCOTUS decision. By the following year of 1975, that number more than doubled to 50,000 and has grown now to the point where approximately 200,000 people regularly flood the Capitol steps and the surrounding areas each year. The 'March for Life' movement supports a set of 'Life Principles' that simply sound like common sense. They support the self-evident truth that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which is the right to life. They support the preservation of every human life by every other human life, from the moment that the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's ovum. This factually and truthfully results in the creation of life, which will result in the birth of a human being, which will result in that human being growing into a child, and finally into an adult. The actual march begins on 4th Street in Washington, D.C. near the U.S. District Court. It then proceeds along Constitution Avenue past the U.S. Capitol and on to 7th Street, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. This evening the annual 'Rose Dinner' (the rose being the symbol of the movement) will be held at the Hyatt Regency. There will be speeches by a few key players in the movement, awards for a half dozen student activists, learning opportunities on the issues, some fine dining, and a toast to success for life issues during the coming year. You know, it just seems to me to be incredible that we need a 'movement' dedicated to life itself. I mean, where would all of the pro-abortion folks be if their parents had made what they determine to be the 'choice' not to give birth to them? Dead, that's where they would be today. Just like the hundreds of millions of babies who have been killed since that infamously egregious 'Roe v. Wade' decision decades ago. Approximately 47 years ago, a young single mother gave birth to a child whose father had abandoned them both. Three months later, my own mother gave birth to me. The son of that single mother, who raised him sometimes in poverty, often in difficulty, was sworn in this week as the 44th President of the United States of America. Many of his supporters decry the more than 4,000 American lives lost by people who by their own choice fought and died for our country. But most of those same supporters hold their tongues for the 7.5 million babies killed by abortion in America since the war began in Iraq. Or worse, they support these deaths. The same streets on which Barack Obama was inaugurated and on which parades honored him just two short days ago were filled today with people marching for human life. Thanks to the hundreds of thousands who flooded the streets of Washington, D.C. today we may one day live to see Americans overturn that immoral and murderous court ruling.

Gianna Jessen Survived Modern Holocaust

Gianna Jessen is one of the few survivors of a holocaust that has raged in a war that has been waged across our country for more than 3 1/2 decades, and that continues to be waged around the world every single day. A holocaust that has claimed over a billion human beings worldwide since 1980 alone, more than three times the number killed in any 'conventional' war. Gianna Jessen, you see, is a survivor of the immoral Abortion Wars. She is not a mother who had complications during an abortion and survived. No, Gianna Jessen is an aborted baby! One who survived, lived, and grew despite all prognostications to the contrary. Her mother was 17 years old when she found out that she was pregnant and decided to have a saline abortion. In this abortion procedure, which is now only rarely practiced, a needle is inserted into the abdomen to remove amniotic fluid. A strong salt solution is then injected, poisoning the baby and badly burning its lungs and skin, and resulting in a birth within 24 hours. Gianna was burned in the womb for over 18 hours, but somehow survived, albeit at around 2 pounds of weight, and was born in an L.A. abortion clinic. Doctors gave her little chance of living. She beat the odds, but was born with Cerebral Palsey and was still not accepted by her mother, being put into foster care. She was mercifully rescued through the foster system, eventually being raised by a loving adoptive mother. Gianna has what she likes to call the "blessing of Cerebral Palsey", but she has never quit on herself. Instead, she learned to walk (with a limp) and has even run marathons. She has also recognized that her life was a gift from God, and she is a devout Christian singer, speaker, and writer. Planned Parenthood has been called the 'deadliest abortion institution in America', and their statistical wing is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose own numbers state that 46 million babies on average are killed by abortions each year. Like Gianna Jessen, millions and millions of Americans are attacked in the womb each year and lose their lives before they have even been allowed to begin enjoying them. Some are killed due to arguable necessity: it's either them or their mom's life that will be lost, or both, so a difficult choice is made. But the vast majority of these are simply out of convenience. The child was unplanned, and the easiest thing from the parents perspective is to kill the baby, usually in the privacy of an abortion clinic, often without the father ever knowing. No complications, no witnesses. Fee and clear. The only problem is, it's rarely that free and clear. Abortion not only kills the baby, it scars the mother. It is long past time that we stopped accepting the scourge of this holocaust here in America. We are supposed to be a nation founded on Christian ethics and morals, and a leader in the world, not a follower. We are not supposed to care what the rest of an irresponsible world prefers, we are supposed to do what is right. Perhaps the strongest reason to vote for John McCain in November is that he and his VP partner Sarah Palin will ensure that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) appointees will respect our Constitution, and not read into it 'Rights' that were never enumerated or intended, such as a so-called 'right' to abortions. Killing another person is called murder or homicide. You can dress it up anyway you want, put any scientific label on it, but that doesn't change what it is. You can put lipstick on a pig...oh, never mind that one. Stand up for what is right, in both your personal life and in what you express to others publicly. As importantly, stand up and be counted with your vote. Visit the creator of the above picture, milehimama.blogspot.com, for more information. Click into the title of this story to view a video by Gianna Jessen, and continue to check the left-side of my website for a running "abortion ticker" which shows how many babies have been killed since the start of the Iraq War.