Voices Empower
 

Updated ~Texans Stand~ Republicans do not reach deal to avert floor fight

Date posted: August 28, 2012

“Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.” -Billy Graham  

 

We thought there was Great news but now understand that the DC insiders and consultants are manipulated again!

“The minority reports addressing Rule 15/16 and Rule 12 are still in play. They should be brought to the General Assembly floor and voted on by the entire delegate body.”~Richard Clark

Please see this e-mail send out by Morton Blackwell at 3 a.m. this morning.

Click to visit the original postDear Fellow Delegate,

You have heard the growing controversy regarding a number of new power grabs in the Rules of the Republican Party as proposed for adoption in the report of 

the Convention Committee on Rules and Order of Business. That committee report will be considered by the convention at today’s afternoon session. Do not be fooled into believing that a good “compromise” has been reached which is even near acceptable.The Minority Reports are alive and well. Although ferocious efforts have been made to get Rules Committee members to withdraw their names from the Minority Reports, grassroots outrage actually persuaded additional Rules Committee members to sign onto the Minority Reports since the Rules Committee meeting last Friday.

The Rule 15 “compromise” affects only one of the three most damaging changes which the Minority Reports would correct. That is the proposal that presidential candidates would be given the power to disallow and remove delegates elected under state party rules or state law.

Unchanged in the “compromise” are the gutting of the currently-in-effect reforms which succeeded this year in stopping the trend toward a national presidential primary and the very worst change proposed in the national rules, the proposed new Rule 12, permitting the Republican National Committee to regularly amend the national party rules between the national conventions.

The Minority Reports would solve both problems.

Proponents of the “compromise” ignore the enormously destructive problem of the proposed Rule 12. Rule 12 would enable 75% of the Republican National Committee later to eliminate their “compromise” and to destroy or make drastic changes in dozens of other rules which have served our party well over the years.

In practice, Rule 12 would enable an RNC chairman to enact almost any rules change he or she desired, because an RNC chairman already has so much power and influence that he or she can almost always can get 75% or more of the RNC members to vote for or against anything. A chairman already has the enormous “power of the purse,” and should not have also the power to change party rules at will. 

There is already quite enough power flow from the top down in our party. Instead of approving more power grabs, we should be looking for ways for more power to flow from the bottom up. That’s how to attract more participants into our party.

The media’s picked up on this series of last-minute manipulations by D.C insiders and consultants, and I’m sure you’ve been bombarded with contacts from both sides.

The truth is, this isn’t a compromise. It’s far from it.

This is insider establishment politics at its worst – and they’re dealing furiously against grassroots conservatives like you and me.

And no change to Rule 15 will mean anything if a party chairman decides to use the powers given under a new Rule 12 that allows the RNC to change the Rules of the Republican Party between national conventions. 

So I’m asking you to support the full Minority Reports on the Rules – and to not be fooled by any so-called “compromise.” I especially ask you to take a stand in your delegation for a roll call vote on the Minority Reports.

Cordially,

Morton Blackwell
National Committeeman, Virginia

Texas ProudReported last night: Great News Texans we’ve made a difference in Tampa Fl. standing strong against rule changes by the RNC rules committee.

Below is a great quote off facebook by Dave Nalle that we pushed out through the Voices Empower networks. Looks like the message was heard.

“Every time the rules are changed and the benchmarks are moved at the convention in Tampa that’s a few more people in the grassroots who never supported Ron Paul who realize that the party has no regard for their rights and no respect for the process the delegates are part of. If they can do this to one group of delegates they can do it to any group of delegates and that message is not being missed. Each of their actions writes another line in the epitaph of the party leadership.” 

The people spoke up, applied pressure and had empact:  Success story 2012!!

Republicans reach rules change deal to avert floor fight with Texans, Ron Paul backers

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

Butch Davis, a member of the RNC Rules Committee who fought off the proposal, said the existing Texas system often elevates grassroots activists and party faithful toiling in the trenches, but the proposed change would have instead allowed GOP leaders and presidential candidates to hand-select delegates and reward donors with delegate spots.

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground.

“The Texas delegation considers the new rule . . . an unacceptable infringement on our right to freely choose our delegates to the national convention,” she said in an e-mail to the committee members. “We realize not every state selects its delegates in the same manner we do, and perhaps you find it hard to understand what has us so worked up. Frankly, we find it hard to understand how your delegations would be willing to give away their rights.”

Republicans who sought the rule change had tried to quash the uprising by Texas, Louisiana, Virginia and other states, for fear of a damaging, public battle erupting on the convention floor Tuesday, just before the party formally names Romney its candidate.

Ultimately, they backed down.

In an e-mail obtained by Hearst Newspapers (available below), Republicans who led the fight against the proposed change said the GOP leaders “heard the concerns of the conservative grassroots voices in our party” and amended their proposal.

“This will allow Republicans of all stripes to come to the convention united and focused on defeating Barack Obama in November,” they said.

Under the deal, delegates who are bound to a presidential candidate that hasn’t bowed out of the race or released them to vote for another contender are barred from casting a vote for a different person. During this convention, the change effectively would mean a delegate bound to Mitt Romney could not instead opt to throw his or her support behind Ron Paul, who has not freed his delegates.

Any vote for another candidate would be voided and the delegate would lose his or her position.

But under the compromise, states would still able to select individual delegates under their own laws and party rules. GOP leaders agreed to remove the rule change provision that would have allowed state-party-selected delegates to be disavowed.

Spokesmen for the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

Fredricks said the agreement appeared to satisfy Texas’ concerns.

Here is the message describing the compromise:

Subject: Resolution of Controversy regarding Rule 15/16

To the Members of the Republican National Committee and the Convention Committee on Rules:
The undersigned are very pleased to announce that the leadership of the Republican National Committee and the Romney for President campaign has heard the concerns of the conservative grassroots voices in our party and has crafted an amendment to the Rules adopted on Friday to address these concerns.
At the same time, the revised language closes a loophole in our party rules, which previously failed to include a penalty for delegates who break their promise to vote for a particular Presidential candidate as required by state law or state party rules.
We are pleased that our party has come together to fashion this compromise. This will allow Republicans of all stripes to come to the Convention united and focused on defeating Barack Obama in November.
The Convention is our party’s opportunity to energize our supporters and activists. It would be unfortunate to squander the opportunity fighting an internal battle which we have now been able to successfully resolve and which will accomplish the goals of all parties involved.

The resolution that we have reached is straightforward. It simply prevents a bound delegate from nominating or casting a vote for a different presidential candidate than the one to whom the delegate was legally bound by state law or state party rule.

Instead, under this new provision, a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge is deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention will record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule.

It leaves the actual selection of delegates completely to state parties under state law and state party rules.

We are pleased that we were able to reach an acceptable resolution and urge the members of the Convention Rules Committee to adopt the revised Rule tomorrow to be included in their report to the Convention.

Text of the Rule:

Rule 16(a)(2).
For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these Rules, if a delegate

(i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the National Convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule,

(ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or

(iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the National Convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the Secretary of the Convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

Knowledge is Power and together we can make the difference!!    
_______________________________________
Voices Empower
  Please attribute to Alice Linahan  with Voices Empower    
Knowledge is Power~ Click and share with your friends!

RNC National Convention~ Floor Fight Brewing

Date posted: August 27, 2012

Below is information about the RNC (Republican National Committee) power grab that is happening in Tampa Florida.

Call to Action for Grassroots/Tea Party activist ~ Please click the List of all the States Rules Committee and call and email them on this.

From Richard Clark~ A Summary of the Romney/Establishment Power Grab Against The Grassroots

The Romney organization and establishment Republicans are pushing new rules that would strip grassroots activists of any meaningful ability to participate in presidential politics.

The process has always been bottom-up, but Romney officials have proposed re-writting the rules so that the nominee can stifle any dissent on the platform committee and even unseat delegates.

This will weaken the process by which Republicans chose their candidate for president and push the grassroots out of the party process.

Romney legal counsel Ben Ginsberg

On Friday in the Rules Committee, Romney’s campaign lieutenants, led by his legal counsel Ben Ginsberg, pushed through several changes that would give Romney broad authority over the Republican nominating process.

–          Ben Ginsberg is a Bush/Cheney/Rove establishment operative going back as far as 2000.

Ginsberg and other Romney loyalists tried to neuter the threat of minority reports by proposing raising the threshold of support to 40 percent.

–       Minority reports allow committee members to state their position against changes. Republican Party rules stipulate that members have one hour to submit a minority report after a meeting and that it must have the support of at least 25 percent of the committee.

–       The attempt was shot down by the Rules Committee as overreach, even by committee members who voted for Ginsberg’s other proposals

One rule proposed by Ginsberg would grant the Republican National Committee new powers to amend the governing document of the GOP, Rules of the Republican Party, without a vote by the full Republican National Convention:

–       The Rules Committee voted 63-38 to approve the new rule; nearly any rule could now be amended by 3/4 of the Republican National Committee.

–       The Romney allies waited until Friday to propose the amendment, choosing to avoid giving the opposition time to organize.

–       Ginsberg, stressed that it would grant “flexibility” to Romney and the committee to adapt to changing political environments.  “This is necessary for the world in which we find ourselves in,” Ginsberg told the committee, adding that it is “important for the political survival of the party in the electoral context,” for the committee to be able to change the rules as it sees fit in the intervening four years between conventions.

–       It essentially offers the Republican Establishment a new tool to keep at bay Tea Party initiatives that threaten to contradict party leadership and stray from a planned message.

Another rule proposed by Romney operatives would require candidates to control the most delegates in at least 10 states, instead of the current 5, in order to have name entered into nomination from the floor. This was defeated in the committee; but is more evidence of the Romney organization and establishment Republican grab for power in the RNC.

–       Proposed by Romney campaign ally, John Ryder, a Tennessee national committeeman.

–       Argument was made under the pretense that it would limit floor fights at future Republican conventions.

  • Ryder stated, “Everyone recognizes that conventions are television events, and they have to be – just as the nightly news – on a tight schedule.  We’re long past the days of smoke-filled rooms and unbound delegates. So the results are a foregone conclusion.”

–       Measure would not have taken effect until 2016.

–       It would also make it much harder for anyone to ruin an incumbent president’s re-nomination.

–       When it became clear that Ryder didn’t have the votes, he agreed to keep the threshold at five – as long as candidates could produce written proof that they actually controlled the delegations in each of those states. That change passed.

A third rule that was proposed, and the one that could come to debate on the floor of the General Assembly on Tuesday, would allow presidential candidates to disavow any delegates and alternates chosen at state conventions.

–       Rule 15(a) currently reads: 

  • Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
    • (1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
    • (2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
    • (3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or
    • (4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.

–       Rule 15(a)(2) as proposed would read:

  • 15(a)(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates permitted by these Rules, no delegate or alternate who is bound or allocated to a particular presidential candidate may be certified under Rule 19 if the presidential candidate to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is bound or allocated has, in consultation with the State Party, disavowed the delegate or alternate delegate.

–       Essentially, under this rule change, the presidential candidate to whom delegates are bound can decide who the delegates are that can go to the national convention.  The language of the rule states that the presidential nominee and state party can disavow any delegate.

  • These are essentially the people who write the platform.  Think about the implications of this:  If the nominee is anti-life, he or she, can essential disavow any pro-life delegate.  If he is in favor of same-sex marriage, he can disavow those delegates.  This gives the nominee too much influence over the party and it diminishes the grassroots who choose the delegates to send.  It is a top-down approach which favors the establishment.
  • This rule puts the candidate, not the state party, in control of who is a delegate from your state.  By not approving or pre-certifying a delegate that delegate will be out, even though the delegate (or alternate) has been legally elected at convention.  In a practical manner, no state party wants its delegates to be disavowed so they will make sure that all of the delegates are agreed to by the candidate and the candidate will have “the hammer” to make sure that is what happens.

–       Currently, Texas delegates to state conventions elect three delegates and three alternates from each Congressional District. They also elect a Nominating Committee to choose the At-Large Delegates and Alternates.

–       Minority reports have benn written.

  • Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu, the committee chair, high-tailed it out of the building before committee members could submit dissenting minority opinions, or “minority reports.”

Texan GOP delegation revoltsThe Texas delegation met on Sunday and Monday.  These rules changes and the minority reports were among the topics of discussion.  It appears that there is unanimous consensus in the delegation to oppose the rule changes.  According to one Texas delegate, “We got a report from Melinda Fredrick and Butch Davis, who are on the Rules Committee. They confirmed the rumor about the rule change. They encouraged a vote for the Minority Report, and got a standing ovation. It looks like Texas will be voting in block to follow the current rule of Texas choosing its delegates.”  It also has been reported that Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri is also calling for a roll call vote on floor of the General Assembly to consider these minority reports.

When Munisteri announced this Monday to the Texas Delegation he received a standing ovation.   

Knowledge is Power and together we can make the difference!!    
_______________________________________
Voices Empower
  Please attribute to Alice Linahan  with Voices Empower    

 

Knowledge is Power~ Click and share with your friends!

David Plouff ~ MUST BE RELEASED FROM HIS JOB AS AN ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Date posted: August 24, 2012

One again we see that the media is not willing to get it right.

How many people realize that David Plouffe (pronounced FLUFF) took money for a speaking engagement from Irancell, the holding company of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? Few do know. Yet, his office is within feet of the Oval Office and he advises our President.

As reported by Patrick Caddell: WHITE HOUSE AIDE DAVID PLOUFFE TAKES MONEY INDIRECTLY FROM IRAN — AND NOBODY SEEMS TO NOTICE

But now, in 2012, a White House aide in the Obama administration is revealed to have received a six-figure amount from a company connected to Iran, and nothing happens. The press doesn’t seem to care; the establishment is unruffled; even opposition Republicans have hardly noticed. If we, as a nation, had been this un-vigilant back during ’30s or the ’40s, America might not have survived.   

So who, exactly, is David Plouffe?  Click here to read more! 

The team at Secure America Now has started the movement to call for Plouffe to resign. 

Please do your part and have your voice heard! Sign and then pass onto your friends and neighbors! 

We are not going to elected a man to save us. As Americans we are going to have to save ourselves. 

Now is the time to do your part!! 

Secure America Now's Newsletter

Click Photo to sign the petition now….

Can you trust President Obama? Watch this alarming video on Obama’s confidant.

Make Davdid Plouffe Resign

FACT: One of President Obama’s trusted advisors, David Plouffe, whose office is steps away from the Oval Office, got very rich by taking money from a Nigeria based company – MTN – a company owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard!

Secure America Now understands that no American — especially an advisor to the President — should enter into contracts with terrorist operatives.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is responsible for Iran’s nuclear program, which poses a clear and present danger to both Israel and the U.S.

Watch the video. If you agree that David Plouffe should resign from his position in the White House, act now!

Sign the Petition demanding David Plouffe’s resignation. 

Knowledge is Power and together we can make the difference!!    
_______________________________________
Voices Empower
  Please attribute to Alice Linahan  with Voices Empower    
Knowledge is Power~ Click and share with your friends!

So Obama wants it to be about Akin and Abortion~ UPDATED

Date posted: August 23, 2012

OK Obama let’s talk about Abortion………. 

obama%20and%20baby.jpgWho is the real radical here? 

Just as Rick Moran over at PJTV stated “….if the president wants to call the GOP position on abortion “extreme,” he better be ready to defend his own positions on the issue which are far outside the mainstream of American thought.” 

Let’s take a look at Obama’s extreme take on Abortion. He has been described as “Obama the abortion extremist,”  by Rich Lowry. 

“Obama opposed the ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act’ three times”, Lowry writes.

Obama Says He’s ‘Pro-Choice’ on Third-Trimester Abortions, by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog. 

During a 2003 press conference, Barack Obama indicated that he thought abortion should be legal in all situations, even late in pregnancy:

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice.”

REPORTER: “In all situations including the late term thing?”

OBAMA: “I am pro-choice. I believe that women make responsible choices and they know better than anybody the tragedy of a difficult pregnancy and I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to meddle in that choice.”  

Are you listening fellow Catholics?   

Transcript:

OBAMA: I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct? […]

Obama Partial Birth Abortion / His Televised Debate Com

Images and text courtesy of National Right to Life. The pictures in the video are not fiction. The partial birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure.

There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). People like Jill Stanek have exposed a practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads.

On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.

The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, as even secular sources acknowledge, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body.

Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995”, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”. The doctors who perform this barbaric act and those who seek to justify it attempt to hide its nature by describing it euphemistically as “intact dilation and evacuation/extraction” or as “intrauterine cranial decompression.

“Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth” (PHACT), a group of more than 300 medical specialists organized to counter the misinformation provided by the abortion industry of the United States, pointed out: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or to protect her future fertility; in fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to the woman”. Many people argue that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child is painless. However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to Congress that this is simply not true.

On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.” As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts.

In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed.”  

Henry Hyde’s Speech Against Partial Birth Abortions:

Knowledge is Power and together we can make the difference!!   

___________________________________________

Check Out Voices Empower Articles  .

  Please attribute to Alice Linahan  with Voices Empower  

Knowledge is Power~ Click and share with your friends!

Shark Attack – The Todd Akin Blunder ~What about Communism?

Date posted:

Two major stories are out this week that should be taking Obama/Biden down in America. 

Why is calling for communism to replace capitalism in U.S not going viral but the comments by  Todd Akin about rape are?  

Why are we not talking about the fact that not only is Joe Biden race baiting. Biden’s ‘good friend,’ donor receives $20M federal loan to open foreign luxury car dealership in Ukraine but the comments by Todd Akin are everywhere?

Answer: Because we are allowing the Left to control the narrative. 

Former union boss at Occupy event: Our goal is to ‘overthrow the capitalist system and build communism’  

Watch:

Former Amalgamated Transit Union local 689 president Mike Golash, now an “Occupy” movement organizer, was caught on tape Sunday revealing his political goals: overthrowing capitalism in the United States and instituting a communist government.

“Progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization,” Golash said during an Occupy DC “People’s Assembly” on August 19.

“Its objective,” he added, “is to make revolution in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.”

Biden’s ‘good friend,’ donor receives $20M federal loan to open foreign luxury car dealership in Ukraine

“In late July, John Hynansky — a longtime friend of Vice President Joe Biden, and a major donor to Biden’s campaigns as well as President Barack Obama’s — was awarded a $20 million taxpayer loan to build a foreign-car dealership in Ukraine.

According to a public summary document, the loan, from the federal government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation, is for “[u]p to $20.0 million,” and is designed to “expand Winner Import Ukraine’s automobile business…..”

No instead we allow the circling of the sharks and are all talking about Todd Akin…….

Well at least we have people like Donna Garner out there getting the story straight. 

By Donna Garner   

Setting the scene:  

Rep. Todd Akin helps serve Chick-Fil-A supporters at a Missouri location Aug. 1: The Congressman is bashing on with his campaign despite mounting pleas that he drop out.

Rep. Todd Akin helps serve Chick-Fil-A supporters at a Missouri location Aug. 1:

Claire McCaskill is a long-time-liberal-left-Democrat (as her record proves – posted below).  McCaskill is considered to be at the top of the list of Democrat Senators who are in danger of losing their seats, and the Republicans believe her seat is crucial to their being able to take back the U. S. Senate from a majority of Democrats under Harry Reid.  

By now we all know that Congressman Akin made a terrible blunder on a TV interview in St. Louis on 8.19.12 when he brought up assertions made by Dr. John Willke, a physician for 40 years in Cincinnati, Ohio (http://www.lifeissues.org/willke.html ). 

Dr. Willke was the president of the National Right to Life Committee for ten years and is a long-time supporter of pro-life candidates. Willke has stated, “When a woman is assaulted and raped, there’s a tremendous amount of emotional upset within her body…this trauma can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy…sperm in a woman who is being raped is less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.” 

In 1996 the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology did publish a peer-reviewed study that estimated 5% of rapes resulted in pregnancies, but a study published in 2001 indicated that 6.4% of rapes result in pregnancy.  Of course, both of these studies undoubtedly leaned on the statements by the women involved to declare “rape” or “consensual sex.” 

The point that Congressman Akin was trying to make in his interview is that any kind of abortion results in a murdered baby and that the rapist should be the one punished for the crime and not the unborn child. However, Akin definitely misspoke when he used the word “legitimate” rape. (Last year, he had worked on a bill in Congress to distinguish forcible rape and abortion restrictions.)

When Akin realized what a blunder he had made in his St. Louis interview, he quickly issued the following statement:

As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault. In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year. Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society, and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve. 

Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that, I apologize. As a father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault, and I pray for them.

The fact is rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness. 

It goes without saying that Obama, the liberal Democrats, and the left-leaning media have reacted to Akin’s blunder the way sharks react to blood in the water; and the Democrats are hoping this whole incident blown completely out of proportion will sink the Republicans’ chances of taking back the White House and the U. S. Senate.

Besides, this blunder by Akin offers a great distraction for Obama and his supporters to avoid talking about his miserable record as President such as the fact that if Obama is re-elected, “Taxmageddon” will mean $494 billion in tax hikes with average taxpayers seeing their taxes increase by about $2,000 to $4,000 starting Jan. 1, 2013.    

I believe Mark Levine on the Mark Levine Radio Show (8.21.12) said it best when he stated that in 50 years nobody is going to remember what Todd Akin said in a TV interview but that everyone in the world will know what America chose to do on Nov. 6, 2012.  

[I agree with Mark Levine that on Nov. 6, 2012, either we Americans will take back our country from the edge of fiscal and social collapse; or we will continue the downward spiral into oblivion until America and its Constitutional ideals are destroyed. – Donna Garner]  

Levine also stated that it is past the deadline for Todd Akin to ask to have his name removed from the ballot without there being a court order; and unfortunately, on the Missouri Supreme Court there are 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Levine does not think that the 4 Democrats on the Court would allow Aikin to remove his name from the Missouri ballot.  Why?   

According to the New York Times (8.19.12 Candidate’s Comments on Rape Draw Criticism ), Congressman Akin’s opponent, liberal-left Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, had decided to promote Aikin in the primaries as the person she wanted to run against in the general election.  Therefore, she spent $2 Million on ads calling him the “true conservative” in this race.  In a state that has been evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, those two million dollars’ worth of ads may have helped to elect Aikin in the primary because he won by six percentage points with 36 percent of the vote.   

BOTTOM LINE:  The way I see it is that we grassroots voters on Nov. 6, 2012, must first-and-foremost oust Obama from the White House; and secondly, we also must oust Harry Reid as the chair of the Senate.  

How do we get rid of Reid as chair?  Presently in the U. S. Senate, the Democrats have a majority of 53 to 47.  During this election cycle, the Senate Democrats are trying to defend 23 seats while the Republicans are defending 10. All that the Republicans need to do is to elect 3 seats to take over the U. S. Senate because when Romney wins, then Vice President Paul Ryan would break any tie votes in the Senate.  

This means that if Congressman Todd Aikin is on the Missouri ballot, the grassroots citizens of Missouri must do the right thing for our country by electing him to the U. S. Senate.  If some other Republican takes Akin’s place on the Missouri ballot, then he/she must be elected to the U. S. Senate.  

The rest of us who live outside Missouri must do our part. When we know which Republican will be on the Missouri ballot in November, we must send our campaign donations to help him/her to get elected.  

Liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill

We must put Romney/Ryan in the White House and also increase the numbers of conservatives in the U. S. House.     

How bad is Senator Claire McCaskill’s voting record?  Please see for yourself:    

U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill — Voting Record by Interest Group

Project Vote Smart~ http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/2109/claire-mccaskill  

ABORTION  

Planned Parenthood – 100%  — (2012, 2010, 2008)  

*Congressman Todd Akin – Planned Parenthood – 0% (2012 through 1995)

National Right To Life – 0% — (2011, 2009, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006)

NARAL Pro-Choice – 0% — (2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007)

*Congressman Todd Akin – NARAL Pro-Choice – 0% (2011 – 1997)

BUDGET, SPENDING, TAXES

National Taxpayers’ Union – 20% (2011), 24% (2010), 25% (2009)

Citizens Against Government Waste – 28% (2010), 46% (2009), 23% (2008), Lifetime Score – 23% (2008)  

CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS

NAACP – 95% (2009-2010), 90% (2009), 97% (2007-2008), 100% (2007)

Human Rights Campaign (largest homosexual organization in U. S.) – 85% (2007-2008)  

CONSERVATIVE

American Conservative Union – Lifetime Score – 15% (2011)

*Congressman Todd Akin’s American Conservative Union – Lifetime Score – 97% (2011)

Conservative Woman for America – 8% (2011), 9% (2009-2010), 27% (2007-2008),

Club for Growth – 26% (2011), 18% (2010), 17% (2009), 15% (2008),

Eagle Forum – 33% (2011), 0% (2010), 26% (2009), 12% (2008)  

EDUCATION

National Education Association (NEA) – received “A”  (2011 through 2007)  

FAMILY AND CHILDREN ISSUES

American Family Association – 4% (2009 – 2010), 0% (2007 – 2008)

*Congressman Todd Akin – 100% (2010 through 2003)

Family Research Association – 0% (2007 – 2008), 0% (2007)

*Congressman Todd Akin – 100% (2009 – 2010 through 2001)

GOVERNMENT REFORM

Citizens Against Government Waste – 28% (2010), 46% (2009), 23% (2008), 23%(2007)  

SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

Human Rights Campaign – 80% (2009 – 2010)

*Congressman Todd Akin – 0% (2009 – 2010)

SOCIAL ISSUES

Family Research Council – 0% (2011), 4% (2009 – 2010)

*Congressman Todd Akin – 100% (2011, 2009 – 2010)

WOMEN’S ISSUES

National Organization for Women – 94% (2007 – 2008)  

CONSERVATIVE

*Congressman Todd Akin — National Journal – Conservative on Social Policy Score   — 89% (2005)

*National Journal – Liberal on Social Policy Score – 0% (2002)

*National Journal – Liberal on Economic Policy Score – 0% (2002)

*National Journal – Composite Conservative Score – 92% (2002)

*National Journal – Composite Liberal Score – 8% (2002)  

So our call to action is to share this information with all of our friends and neighbors and let them know the real agenda of the far left.

Romney Campaign: These last four years have seen higher unemployment, declining incomes, and crushing debt. This cannot be the new normal. America needs a comeback. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: America’s Comeback Team.

Knowledge is Power and together we can make the difference!!    
_______________________________________
Voices Empower
  Please attribute to Alice Linahan  with Voices Empower    

 

 

Knowledge is Power~ Click and share with your friends!

« Older Entries