Media Watch Page
Newsmax.com Compilation
Media Research Center
Pro-Life Website Forces Correction From NY Times
Five weeks after the New York Times was notified about a major error in its reporting on abortions in El Salvador, the newspaper finally ran a correction on Sunday.
--CNSNews.com--
Our previous story noted that although the ombudsman wrote about the error, the paper had not actually run a correction on it. This closes another sorry chapter in the saga of the “New York Slimes”.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Monday January 8, 2007 18:53
Let's see how the Slimes deals with the news that amniotic fluid provides viable and useful stem cells.
BTY, I haven't been receiving your updates, BK
Poll: Majority Believe Iraq Coverage Biased
Most Americans are convinced that media coverage of the conflict in Iraq is inaccurate and portrays the situation as being worse than it actually is, a new survey shows.
--NewsMax.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]'Hate Crime’ Ignored by Media
Last Halloween in the Bixby Knolls neighborhood of Long Beach, where neighbors put on a lavish fright fest each year, three young women left a haunted house and found themselves caught in a street brawl with a crowd of teenagers. By melee’s end, one woman’s face was fractured in 12 spots, her teeth were broken and she’d suffered partial loss of sight in one eye. Two of the women suffered brain concussions and assorted broken bones after being kicked, punched and even struck by a skateboard wielded as a weapon.
--Los Angeles Weekly--
Author: Patricia
Date: Friday January 5, 2007 9:20
When the laws were written there was no suggestion of which race, religion or what ever. Lady justice is blindfolded, The Race or Religion of the victim should not be a factor.
It looks like justice will not be served, especially since the judge refused to accept evidence, To, "Save time"? In a case like this when such a situation occurs and it would seem the District Attorney is doing his job, he has no appeals process.
While persons were not hurt this Christmas season was blighted by attacks on people's property. Lawn stable scenes were destroyed and the figure of the Infant, Who's Birthday we celebrated on the 25th of Dec. was particularly given extreme damage or taken away all together.
Only certain individuals, perhaps of color or of secular or no religion can be victimised. The rest of us are on our own, it would seem.
So I ask who is it that has the "Power"?
More and more Whites and people of Faith are the victims.
Larry Kudlow: The Poverty of John Edwards
John Edwards is just another class warrior who fails to recognize that when you slam wealth, you raise poverty.
--National Review--
The “wealthy” can be divided into two classes - one class got wealthy by increasing the aggregate wealth of the nation, i.e., they are the productive wealthy. The other class is the one trial-lawyer Edwards represents. He can't be expected to understand how creating wealth benefits the rich and the poor.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Jill Stanek: Born Alive Veterans for Truth
Obama had been the sole senator speaking against Born Alive on the Senate floor in 2001 and 2002 and had single-handedly killed it in a committee he chaired in 2003.
--WorldNetDaily.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Michelle Malkin: All the abortion lies fit to print
It's official: The editors of The New York Times have no shame. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Times’ own ombudsman, Byron Calame.
--TownHall.com--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]ABC News “bad-mouthing” recycling?
Think Charity Means Giving Someone Less Fortunate Your Old Shirt for Christmas? Think Again.
--ABC News--
As the article gets around to telling us (but makes it seem like a bad thing), much of the clothing donated is sold to textile manufacturers for recycling. What's the problem with that?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]N.Y. Times admits paper caught in misrepresentation
Byron Calame, the Public Editor (ombudsman) at the New York Times, in a 1,500 word article published on December 31 in the New York Times, admits that LifeSiteNews.com was correct in exposing a grievous error in reporting by the New York Times Magazine.
--LifeSiteNews.com--
Actually, after reading the entire article, I find the headline here to be not completely accurate. It seems that only the Public Editor (ombudsman) has admitted to biased reporting.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Inoculating Obama on Cocaine Abuse?
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: “Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.”
--Washington Post--
Let's see if the media give this as much attention as they did to unsubstantiated allegations of drug use by candidate George W. Bush.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]CNN Apologizes for Osama/Obama Gaffe
CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline “Where's Obama?” A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted.
--NewsMax.com (AP)--
Could it have had something to do with the media's obsession with Obama?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Poll: Americans Optimistic about Gloom and Doom
Dec. 30 Headline: \nAP poll: Americans optimistic for 2007 \nDec. 31 Headline: \nPoll: Americans see gloom, doom in 2007 \nGuess what! Both AP stories are reporting on the same poll!
--Associated Press--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Journalists May Testify in CIA Leak Case
WASHINGTON - Some journalists who made careers out of questioning government officials and bearing witness to history may soon find themselves answering questions from prosecutors as key witnesses in the CIA leak case.
--Breitbart.com (AP)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Poughkeepsie Journal Editor Responds to MHVP Story
I received the following e-mail from John Penney, Editorial Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal: \n
Editorial Page Editor
Pougkeepsie Journal \n
--Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective--
John continually accuses me of distorting things, but if you look at his last sentence, you'll see a great example of actual distortion. The article in question didn't ask whether the Journal speaks to “valley concerns”, it asked if the Journal speaks for the Valley as the “news” story purpored to do. \nAnd of course, that “huge stack of distortions and egregious errors of omissions” is nothing but a figment of John Penney's imagination. And John (I know you read this), if you think you can refute that, feel free to - just click on “Add a comment” and list away. - BK
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Does the Poughkeepsie Journal Speak for You?
Headline: “Saddam's death inspires little joy in local residents” \nLead paragraph: “For mid-Hudson Valley residents, the death of Saddam Hussein, three years after his capture, does not provide any measure of relief.”
--Poughkeepsie Journal--
This “news” story appeared on page two. It is a lie, because I live in the “Valley”, and Saddam Hussein's execution did provide a measure of relief for me. Now that he's dead, Iraqis have no fear that he can return, and there won't be any hostages taken to trade for his release. \nThe Journal should be ashamed of itself for allowing this skewed opinion to pass itself off as “news”. \nAnd here's a note to Michael Woyton the “reporter” who wrote this story: If you're going to attempt to gauge the feelings of “the Valley”, going to SUNY New Paltz and asking a professor is more apt to get the exact opposite. - BK
Author: BK
Date: Saturday December 30, 2006 16:25
I sent this article to Michael Woyton, its author, and received the following e-mail (auto?) response:
Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to submit them as a letter to the editor.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday December 30, 2006 14:11
PJ, Speak for me? Bite your tung?
They could never comprehend my thoughts.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday December 30, 2006 13:37
How could anyone take joy in the death of anyone?
Relief is another thing. By the same token, while I feel relief at his no longer being able to hurt anyone again I have concern for what reprisals we may face.
I am sure the terrorists blame us even more than the new government.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday December 30, 2006 10:49
Bravo, BK! No, the PJ doesn't speak for me, and apparently neither does it speak for the Iraquis.
Helen
Author: D. Giannelli
Date: Wednesday December 13, 2006 11:13
To me this is political posturing. He was accused of pandering to the local school boards
and to the teachers union during the campaign. So he grandstands on "behalf" of the parents
(with the approval of the "shocked" school board?). It has been alleged that this whole bus
stop issue is a smokescreen to get the public's collective eye off of the construction cost
at WCSD.
Author: Sparrowhawk011
Date: Tuesday December 12, 2006 20:03
Clearly, all he can do is plead guilty. He chose to kill to protect those who could not protect themselves, which is still wrong. He should make every effort to talk about abortion and his pro-life views since he is going to be found guilty anyway, and being found in contempt of court is not going to change his sentence. I wonder if his outbursts (assuming he defies the judge and speaks his mind) will be given the same amount of respect that Saddam Hussein's outbursts got in his trial? Hmm...
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday December 9, 2006 11:09
I do not beleive murder or shooting of any kind is a solution to the horror of abortion.
As to Mr. Koop I do not know if he is really guilty or covering for someone who is more vunerable then he. I also hope he fights all the way to the supreme court on this Federal Charge. They are playing persecution games with him.
So as far as I am concerned they are all guilty and there are no innocents in the case, there may just be more guilty we do not know about.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:35
Re: “To vote for a pro-abort candidate to me is an immoral act that would keep me from Receiving my Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament.”
Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to be saying otherwise, though far be it from me to tell you how to practice your religion.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:34
And Bill can say that a vote for Sue Kelly is a vote against John Hall and a vote for Nick Spano is a vote against Andrea Stewart-Cousins. No thanks. I will never support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:07
Joe,
Fortunately the other guy did not win.
I think your choice a good one. In that case I had to go with the better man that could possibly win. Not a compromise. Say it was a vote against his opponent.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 11:00
Bk,
Why oh, why did I ever ask the first question.
Bill, I am responsible before God for MY actions, not those of others. To vote for a pro-abort candidate to me is an immoral act that would keep me from Receiving my Lord and Savior in the Blessed Sacrament.
Helen can not either. I do not know about Joe, but so far I agree with everything he has said except not liking my guy for President in '08.
No More. I will read no more and respond no more I can not convince you and you certainly are no going to change me.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:43
Patricia,
I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004. I agree with Pat Buchanan on many things, but I would not vote for him due to his endorsement of pro-abort President Bush in '04. He definitely isn't running in '08. I suspect his political career is over, but he is still useful as a writer and talking head. I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush for dogcatcher.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:35
Alan Keyes is all rhetoric and no action. He is against Face the Truth demonstrations, and still hangs with that larcenous fraud, Randall Kerry.
Keyes just loves the sound of his own voice.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:33
Re: “What cheap shot?”
You sound like the worst kind of Liberal.
Get some back bone man. It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.
How can you possibly say I have no backbone? Just because I disagree with you?
And insuating that I go along to get along is absurd! If I was doing that, I'd just “go along” with the conservative “base” that thinks putting anti-American socialists in power to uphold some kind of “principle” is the way to go.
How much cheaper does the shot have to be?
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:32
You didn't answer my last comment, Bill. Why?
I didn't exactly call you a lobotomized cultist. I just IMPLIED that you may be among their number...
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 10:23
Re: “Those issues can never be compromised for political expediancy.”
You're confusing the issue. I'm not talking about compromising for political expediency, I'm talking about compromising for results. Al Gore compromised his “pro-life” position in order to be acceptable for national office by his pro-abort party. That's an example of “political expediency”. Compromise for results is an entirely different animal. When you demand 100% acceptance of your position in the political world, you usually end up with 0%.
One of the big knocks against ‘liberals’ is that their intentions are taken more seriously than are the actual results of their policies. For instance, it doesn't seem to matter to them that their welfare state ends up dooming more people to a state of dependency. All that matters is that they “care”.
You seem to be falling into the same trap.
What if you wake up Wednesday morning to hear that John Hall won by one vote, giving pro-abortion Democrats control of the House by one seat? They then proceed to roll back all the (albeit small) steps the GOP has taken on PBA, parental notification, defense of marriage, etc. Will you feel the slightest bit responsible because your vote could have made the difference?
You may think you were “100% right”, but in reality, you'd be 100% responsible for the mischief.
And yes, this election could be that close!
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:55
Joe,
Did you vote for President Bush in '00 & 04?
He was the best there was and he is Pro-Life, granted not as Pro-Life as we thought he was. But as a very wise priest said in '04 "None of these guys are up for canonization".
I know that sounds like I am going back on the compromise thing I am not. I believed him to be fully Pro-Life. He is as much as he knows how to be and I still believe him to be an honorable man. The closest to 100% Pro Life we are going to get is Alan Keyes. Pat B, but he scares the dickens out of me. As strong and radical as Dr. Keyes is he seems to be the better man. Always did. I was talked into, yes, compromise in '96 by not writing in his name in the primery. No More.
Author: Joe
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:28
Patricia,
I was also a Keyes delegate in 2000. However, I would not vote for him again due to his endorsement of pro-abort President Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:17
BK,
RE. Compromise
Compromise is one thing on prudential issues, but there are certain core issues that are non negotiable. Life, from fertilization to natural, non assisted death, and marriage and family. Those issues can never be compromised for political expediancy.
That's like at the Conference in Egypt a number of years ago the liberals screamed at the Vatican representative asking why they came if they were not willing to compromise.
We can not go back and fix any of that or change it if it is not right we can not bring people back to life.
That is why they are non negotiable.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:07
P.s. One of Dr. Keyes heros, as was mine, was President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The Democratic President that lowered taxes and also had trouble with a Congress of his own party.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 9:02
BK,
What cheap shot?
I AM a Democrat at heart. A Conservative one to be sure, but for much of my adult life I voted and worked for Democratic candidates. After Roe & Doe I registered RTL. Then in order to vote in primeries I registered Republican. Always I have voted for the candidate.
Now, sorry for your philosphy, but I would vote for the most liberal of tax raising Democrats if they were Pro-Life.
Fortunately I have not been faced with that.
Maybe some of you remember I was on the ballot to be Alan Keyes delegate in 2000. He is still where my heart is and pray he runs again in '08.
Now there is a man I think we could all support. I know Helen has feelings about him because of a certain friendship he seems to have manintained. I am sure she would vote for him over Hillery. Especially since I am sure that that friend would play no part in Dr.Keyes' government.
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 8:14
Re: “We will get what we demand.”
You won't get things by demanding them, you have to work for them. But first, you have to formalize what you want to accomplish.
For pro-lifers (of varying degrees), those objectives would be:
1. Changing one's self,
2. Changing others' attitudes, and
3. Changing laws.
The first two can be done in church, on the street, in conversations, and in publications.
The third has to be accomplished in the arena of politics, and that requires compromise. The amount of compromise can be a function of how well you do #2, but compromise is necessary until you get 50.1% on your side.
As long as you take the attitude that you'll refuse to compromise because you'd rather be 100% “right”, you accomplish nothing, and in reality, end up 100% wrong!
Author: BK
Date: Sunday November 5, 2006 7:33
Re: “It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.”
Are you accusing me of going along to get along? That's just plain silly! I could just as believably make the same charge against you - but I won't. I'd rather stick to the issue.
And your statement that you people splitting conservatives aren't “tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart” is wrong by definition. If you had your way, we'd have a party for “100% pro-life”, another for 90%, another for 80%, etc., and each faction would be completely powerless and ineffective. The problem with some people is that it's more important for them to be “right” than to accomplish anything, and in this case, accomplishments would mean saving lives. How many are you saving while you pat yourself on the back for being “right”?
Re: “It is time to stop now…”
If you want to stop, just stop. But don't take a cheap shot and then say it's time to stop. That makes you sound like a Democrat.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 23:42
BK,
It is time to stop now Bill. This has been more than enough.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:15
BK,
You sound like the worst kind of Liberal.
Get some back bone man. It is not us that is tearing Pro-Life conservatives apart. It's people that go along to get along.
We will get what we demand.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:15
You haven't been listening, obviously. "My" Conservative party is filled with corruption
and lies to people. That's exactly why I'm running Bill!It's just as bad at the state level. I have exposed this with this candidacy.
BTY, I haven't noticed any endorsements from the GOP either. O yeah; they're all too "moderate" to back a person who holds such "extreme" views.
Haven't you heard ANYTHING I've been saying for the last 3 months?
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:08
As smart, I do not know,
Righter we are.
Author: Patricia(real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:04
Movin,
Another one not acting on Principle.
I hope you are voting for Helen. we know she is 100% Pro-Life. That way you will not be a complete traitor to LIFE.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 19:06
And Helen, what has your party done for the good of mankind? You're their standard-bearer in the 102nd and they won't even endorse you, let alone give you any support.
You can bad-mouth the GOP all you want but if you don't have a viable alternative, all you're accomplishing is giving “aid and comfort”.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:56
When you stoop to name-calling, you sound like a Democrat.
Author: Patricia (real name)
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:50
I do not know about smarter, but we are RIGHTER!
That is better.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 18:15
WE are responsible for the weakness of the GOP?
The GOP, both locally and nationally, is a party of wimps.
IT gets control of congress twice, and it's "big tent" philosophy has given us nothing; no boarder security, a globalist president who makes his bed with Vincenti Fox, a Congress full of proaborts and fatcats who are doing as much to tear this country down as the liberals.
You know the saying that a grand jury will indight a ham sandwich\BK, you would eat dirt if it came in a jar that says "Republican".
Certain things are not open to compromise. Certain things are non-negotiable.
As far as I'm concerned the only true Republican/Conservative is Pat Buchanan.
You GOP apologists are like lobotomized cultists, and your infallible leader is Bush.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 17:03
Joe,
Don't you know the difference between “conservative” and “Conservative”? Only one of them is a proper noun.
Years ago, there was a Liberal Party in NY. It split the Democrats just like the Conservative Party is splitting Republicans today. But the ‘liberals’ were smart enough to consolidate and in the process made the Democrat Party more ‘liberal’ (and stronger). I hate to think that they're smarter than conservatives, but from what I'm reading here, I'm not so sure they're not.
People like yourself have meanwhile been working to weaken the GOP, and what has it gotten us? One of the most ‘liberal’ state governments in the country, with no prospects of improvement.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:50
I am trully sorry Bill. If you had really wanted to help Helen you would have. Helen needed everyone.
You don't get it. Chris Smith, how many years in Congress now, was RTL but gained the acceptance of the Republican Party. We need to get started with some like Helen and next time around she will be on both Republican and Conservative, better yet Constitution party.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:40
So we are disinfranchised.
Hope I spelled that right. I usually just hit reg. reply and Bill puts in on site but he doesn't want to do that now.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 16:17
That makes no sense. Why would the existence of the Conservative Party cause the Republican Party to nominate pro-abort liberals like Sue Kelly? The Conservative Party has endorsed her too. Both parties are pro-abort.
If you are not a conservative, why did you write "Besides, I can't submit one until after the election, since I'm a conservative and have to abide by their rules." Whose orders are you following?
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 13:58
Re: “BTW, I neglected to mention another pro-abort candidate endorsed by the Conservative Party: Sue Kelly!”
And I suppose it never occurred to you that the reason the GOP runs candidates like Sue Kelly is because conservatives “divorced” themselves from the party.
We don't need Democrats dividing us, we're doing a fine job of it all on our own.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 13:45
I'm not registered as Conservative! I tried to change my registration some time ago, but the paperwork apparently got lost. I have since recognized the error of my ways and will not make that mistake again any time soon.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 12:25
If America is indeed a two-party country, why are you registered with the Conservative Party as you previously indicated. The Conservative Party is a third party you know, though not a pro-life party.
BTW, I neglected to mention another pro-abort candidate endorsed by the Conservative Party: Sue Kelly!
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 12:06
Re: “Both the Republican AND Conservative Parties are pro-abort.”
I disagree with that assessment, although it can be said that they've been taken over by people who are not dedicated to the GOP's stated principles. And part of that problem rests, in my opinion, on the splintering of the conservative base of the Republican Party. We see the results in the way the DCCP treats Helen. The Republicans run a left-wing candidate largely because conservatives would rather split off than fight for control of the party. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party thinks it has to support the left-wing RINO in order to remain relevant.
The political reality today is that this is a two-party country. It will take a seismic event to change that. In order to implement an agenda, we need political clout, and as a third party, the only real clout we'd have is the power to sabotage. That's hardly a plan for success.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:51
Re: “So THAT'S why you haven't written any letters to the editor to support my campaign.”
You don't need me writing to support you, you need people who aren't normally vocal (and aren't listed on your website) to stand up for you. So far, I haven't seen any.
People who read the PJ already know where I stand. If I wrote a letter supporting you, it would be a wasted letter, in my opinion, and to me, they're like gold. Besides, I can't submit one until after the election, since I'm a conservative and have to abide by their rules.
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:11
Both the Republican AND Conservative Parties are pro-abort. Both endorsed both Pataki and Spano.
Author: Movin
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 11:04
The right way is to put up a candidate who is 100 % pro-life in the Republican primary and get rid of Kelly. But until then, I agree with Bill, this time.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 10:11
So THAT'S why you haven't written any letters to the editor to support my campaign.
I wondered.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:28
Re: “we need to divorce the GOP”
No, we need to save the marriage.
The GOP is an oil tanker, and the Conervative Party is a dinghy. While the dinghy may be easier to steer, it doesn't get anything delivered.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:25
"Remote Material" or other wise I am not doing it at all.
I will not even "Remotely" agree to the death of a sister or brother in the human family.
END OF DISCUSSION
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:20
An exerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington in 2004, reads as follows:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
(emphasis mine)
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 9:10
Joe,
Amen!
Author: Joe
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 8:27
I will never vote for a pro-abort. I've got just one life, and I know what's right.
Author: Patricia
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 8:22
Sorry Bill I can not give my vote to any pro-abort. I just will not vote at all for Congress.
You will have to forgive me Bill, but I vote according to what my insides tell me is right NOT political expediancy.
I am not responsible for what happens after the election as long as I did not participate in killings of any kind, except terrorists.
You have no idea how close to home you are coming on that one. No abortion but it's sister euthinasia.
Author: BK
Date: Saturday November 4, 2006 7:35
Thanks for the compliment, Helen, but I can only wish I was the “Rush Limbaugh of Dutchess County”.
Please read the latest Weekly Briefing from the Population Research Institute (www.pop.org). If you're on their mailing list (which pro-lifers should be), you should have already gotten it, but unfortunately, it wasn't on their website at this writing.
Do you think there will be less abortions with Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker? Do you think a Democrat-controlled House would have passed the bill to keep the ACLU from profiting on lawsuits against religious holiday displays? Will Frisco Nancy allow any bill defending marriage get to the floor for a vote?
Wake up people! This is the most important mid-term election in decades. Sitting it out will make you responsible for the mischief Democrats unleash on us. And writing in the name of someone who can't possibly win is essentially no different than siting it out.
Author: Helen Westover
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 23:39
I agree with Patricia as well!
Prolifers MUST stop the compromises...and we need to divorce the GOP.
Sorry Bill (The Rush Limbaugh of Dutchess County) K.
Remember, vote for ME!!
Author: Joe
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 17:14
I agree with Patricia. I am in Sue Kelly's district. I decided many years ago that I would never support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of conception to natural death -- without exception. My recollection is that in the past since I have lived in this district there has always been a Right To Life candidate on the ballot opposing her, and Ben Gilman before her. If there is not this time I will right in the name of some eligible prolife person. Since I have made that pledge I have never had cause to vote for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Author: BK
Date: Friday November 3, 2006 16:26
Patricia,
I'll gladly give you a clothes-pin so you can have both hands free while you hold your nose and vote for Sue Kelly. Granted, she's rotten on the issue of abortion, but if she loses to John Hall the Communist, it could make the difference in who controls House committees, and that could be disastrous.
If Joel Tyner is elected to the Assembly because Helen took votes from Miller, it won't make a hill of beans difference in what happens in New York, but Voting against Sue Kelly could make a HUGE difference nation-wide.
Please reconsider.
Author: Patricia
Date: Thursday November 2, 2006 13:08
Do I care? I do not vote for pro-death people in any case. Who kmows what she knew or when she knew it.If she allows death other than in God's time she does not belong there either.
CBS doesn't air special report on Ford
NEW YORK - Unlike its network rivals, CBS News did not break into its programming for a special report on former President Ford's death, instead running a printed “crawl” at the bottom of the screen with the news.
--Yahoo! News (AP)--
Can someone please explain why this is a newsworthy story?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Tony Snow to Reporter: Use Your Common Sense
NEW YORK - Reflecting either years of unhappiness with a tight-lipped White House -- or merely a “slow news day” -- reporters today pressed White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on why Laura Bush kept private for so the case of skin cancer that has just been disclosed after a delay of several weeks.
--Editor & Publisher--
This is a little old, and I wish I'd spotted it sooner, but it's too good to pass on. \nSee how the reporters continued to hound the White House on this non-story, and then recall how they treated Clinton's refusal to release his medical records - with a collective yawn! And there's a huge difference in importance between the two. The first lady's health is nobody's business but her own. The president's health is a different story. It's something the public needs to know, since it can have huge national implications.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Brokaw: Booming economy dependent on illegals
Illegal immigrants have become a fixed and growing part of America — living, working, and raising families in the shadows.
--MSNBC (NBC News)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Media Want Documents in CIA Leak Case
Two news organizations are asking a federal judge to unseal documents in the CIA leak case, arguing that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never needed the testimony of reporters because he knew the source of the leak all along.
--NewsMax.com (AP)--
[an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]