was McCain’s concession speech…really incredible…
paradoxically, better then Obama’s inauguration speech…
was McCain’s concession speech…really incredible…
paradoxically, better then Obama’s inauguration speech…
according to the Candidate Matchmaker, which you see on the right top of this page, my match is….
You thought you are about to choose just one president?
I’ve read this today:
PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AFFECTING LIFE ISSUES
As the expression goes, “personnel is policy.” To have his policies carried out, a President must have like-minded individuals in key positions. When we elect a President, then, we also elect an entire army of people appointed by the President who will affect policy at all levels of government, including deciding which private groups participate in federal programs or receive federal grants.
Every President fills over 7,000 positions in the White House, federal departments and agencies, and advisory panels. This figure does not include Judicial Branch appointments. A complete list of all positions filled by presidential appointment is available in the “Plum Book,” the latest edition of which is available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/index.html.
The following list contains some of the key appointments a President makes that can affect the Culture of Life:
Supreme Court Justices (lifetime tenure)
President Ronald Reagan appointed three and promoted Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice.
President George H.W. Bush appointed two.
President Bill Clinton appointed two.
President George W. Bush appointed two.
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judges (lifetime tenure)
Ronald Reagan appointed 83
George H.W. Bush 42
Bill Clinton 66
George W. Bush 57
Federal District Court Judges (lifetime tenure)
Ronald Reagan appointed 290
George H. W. Bush 148
Bill Clinton 305
George W. Bush 237.
Chief of Staff
Counsel to the President
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Director, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Special Assistants for Legislative Affairs (lobby Congress to implement proposals backed by White House; at least 11 of these Assistants)
Office of Policy Development (13 appointments)
Office of Management and Budget (sets the federal budget sent to Congress; at least 29 appointments here)
Attorney General (12 appointments to the Office of the Attorney General)
Office of the Solicitor General (the Administration’s counsel before the Supreme Court; 7 appointments)
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (includes over 100 U.S. Attorneys across the country who bring prosecutions for federal crimes, such as, perhaps, partial-birth abortion)
Office of the Associate Attorney General (includes numerous appointees, including those for the Civil Rights Division, which defends the rights of the disabled, among others)
Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Health and Human Services (20 appointments, such as Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Special Assistant for Grants, and Counselor to the Secretary)
Office of the General Counsel (30 appointments)
Assistant Secretary for Public Health and Science (17 appointments, including Surgeon General)
Office of Global Health Affairs (5 appointments)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation (10 appointments)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (34 appointments)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (14 appointments)
Among other things, keeps track of abortion statistics.
National Institutes of Health (20 appointments)
Food and Drug Administration (30 appointments)
Charged with testing, approving, and monitoring drugs for safety, such as RU-486.
Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration
$750 million budget and 140 employees; oversees international family planning programs.
Ambassador to the United Nations
Argues the American position with regard to international treaties, including those dealing with family planning and women’s rights.
U.S. Agency for International Development (over 50 appointments)
Administers U.S. foreign aid, including contracts for family planning assistance.
Chairman and 15 Members, President’s Council on Bioethics
Head of the Republican National Committee or Democratic National Committee
These committees recruit candidates to run for the House and Senate, thereby having a direct impact on the composition of Congress. They also determine which candidates will get campaign assistance from the party.
THE VETO-PROOF CONGRESS
If the House of Representatives and the Senate pass a bill, the measure is sent to the President for his signature. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, the President may then veto the legislation and return it to the body where it originated.
Congress may override a presidential veto if two-thirds of those members voting in each house approve the legislation. For example, if only 90 of the 100 Senators are present for a vote to override a veto, 60 votes (two-thirds of those present) would be necessary for the override attempt to be successful. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1961 and 2005, there were 350 presidential vetoes, 33 of which (9.4 percent) were overridden.
Generally, a “veto proof” Congress is one where the party in opposition to the President controls at least 67 seats in the Senate and 290 in the House. Those numbers would apply, though, only if a vote went strictly along party lines. They would also only apply if every single member of Congress were present for the override vote.
With regard to pro-life/pro-abortion votes in the current House and Senate, there is no fixed number as support for pro-life positions depends on the specific issue involved.
Approximate pro-life and pro-abortion strength could be measured by votes in the most recent Congress.
In the Senate, a move to abandon the Mexico City Policy that bars foreign aid from going to groups that promote abortion was approved in 2007 on a 53-41 vote (six not voting). Thus, 56.4 percent of the Senators voting took a pro-abortion position. A switch of five votes would have made the move to eliminate the Mexico City Policy “veto proof” in the Senate. (NOTE: Of the six Senators who didn’t vote, four, Biden, Clinton, Obama, and Lincoln are pro-abort; thus even if everyone had voted, it still would have taken a switch of only five votes to have made the Senate “veto proof” over a pro-life president.)
In the House of Representatives, a 2007 vote to undermine the Mexico City Policy passed 217-205, with 13 not voting. This represented a 51.1 percent pro-abortion majority. Of those not voting, only three were pro-abortion, so one could say that there were 220 pro-abortion votes on this measure; that would mean a switch of 35 votes would be necessary to obtain a veto-proof pro-abortion majority.
In summary, even if a pro-life president were elected in November, the election of five more pro-abortion Senators and 35 more pro-abortion Congressmen would mean that pro-aborts would be left unchecked to pass and enact deadly, anti-life legislation.
In the United States Senate, procedural rules allow for the prolonged delay of a pending vote. This extended delay is called a filibuster.
At one time, rules required that a Senator or Senators actually continue speaking to maintain a filibuster. Today, a Senator only need indicate that he is filibustering, although the Senate Majority Leader has the discretion to require a traditional filibuster, most famously portrayed in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” if he chooses.
A filibuster can hold up a vote on a bill for an indefinite period. This usually results in Senators reaching some sort of compromise on the bill or in the bill’s withdrawal from consideration. Sometimes, instead of a bill, presidential nominations to executive or judicial posts are filibustered.
Senate rules do permit filibusters to be ended by cloture votes. Invoking cloture, which ends debate and forces a vote on the bill under consideration, requires a three-fifths vote of all currently sworn Senators. Traditionally, then, a Senate is said to be “filibuster proof” if the majority party has at least 60 seats. (NOTE: Less than 60 votes would be required only if there were two or more vacancies in the Senate.)
Presently, pro-lifers are in the minority in the United States Senate. Fifty-seven Senators now favor ending the Mexico City Policy, which forbids foreign aid being given to groups that perform or promote abortion. If the Senate were to gain three more pro-abortion votes, pro-lifers would not be able to filibuster to prevent the end of the Mexico City Policy.
The filibuster could be a crucial pro-life tool in stopping pro-abortion legislation if both Congress and the presidency were controlled by pro-aborts. Most recently, the filibuster was used by pro-abortion forces to block the confirmation of President Bush’s nominees to federal courts.
The House of Representatives does not permit filibustering.
VERY GRAPHIC IMAGE BELOW!!!
Excerpt from the interview with Mother Teresa: ( by the way, she prayed four hours a day)
You and Pope John Paul II have spoken out against life-styles in the West, against materialism and abortion. How alarmed are you?
I always say one thing. If a mother can kill her own child, then what is left of the West to be destroyed? It is difficult to explain, but it is just that.
Exerpts from Abortion Tv:
Source: Central Illinois Right To Life
Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:
According to LifeSiteNews.com, Obama is planning to implement unrestricted abortion in the USA by signing Freedom of Choice Act, which would nullify any state or federal laws blocking or restricting abortion and invalidate any limitations the Supreme Court has put on abortion.
A proposed “Freedom of Choice Act” is not about freedom at all, says cardinal Justin Rigali, the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia, pointed out the faulty logic in the proposed act in a letter Friday to all members of Congress.
The act “would deprive the American people in all 50 states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA [the Freedom of Choice Act] would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. And FOCA would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government to reduce abortions in our country,” the cardinal affirmed.
Cardinal Rigali warned that the act is not a mere codification of the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion. Instead, it would affect anti-abortion laws and policies that are in effect because they do not conflict with Roe v. Wade. These include such things as policies to protect women’s safety, parental rights and informed consent.
“The operative language of FOCA is twofold,” Cardinal Rigali explained. “First it creates a ‘fundamental right’ to abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons. No government body at any level would be able to ‘deny or interfere with’ this newly created federal right.
“Second, it forbids government at all levels to ‘discriminate’ against the exercise of this right ‘in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.’ For the first time, abortion on demand would be a national entitlement that government must condone and promote in all public programs affecting pregnant women.”
The prelate included a legal analysis of FOCA’s possible consequences with his letter to Congress.
“Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society,” wrote Cardinal Rigali. “However, there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion. […] No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.”
this video from Grassroots Films is awesome
Biden and Pelosi, both Catholics, were asked about their stand on the issue of life at the conception during the interviews on TV lately. Their answers, not aligned with the teaching of the Catholic church, prompted a response from US Catholic bishops by publishing Fact sheet on pro-life and Church teaching on abortion.
My first iReport experience here.
This is what I was waiting for. The questions I would ask (and some more), were mostly asked. No hype, no brutality, no fighting, but a simple conversation, allowing these two great men to answer without being interrupted. The issues were broad, including abortion, human trafficking, personal life with God, orphans, personal moral failures, war, Supreme Court justices, evil, steam cell reaserch, and many more.
Here is a helpful side by side question-answer comparison.
You can, and should watch it, (CNN site here).