Vital Signs Hacked!

We returned from the March for Life in Washington (see post below) to find that, in addition to our regular duties, we must try to recover the Vital Signs Ministries web page from a sophisticated yet very sinister act of sabotage.

The entire site has been hijacked by a person or persons operating out of Turkey who, we've been told, have successfully eliminated several Western web sites including those from certain pro-life organizations. Ours, for all intents and purposes, may be beyond repair.

But, it is not beyond resurrection!

The Vital Signs Ministries web page will soon be back and better than ever...including the use of a few new protective layers, for sure!

March for Life 2007

It is, by far, the largest annual public event in Washington, D. C. It is, by far, the largest youth-oriented event that occurs annually in Washington, D.C. But it is also the most under-reported event in Washington, D.C.

It is the March for Life.

Held every January 22nd to mark the tragic, shameful Roe v Wade decision, the March is also an important renewal of commitment for the thousands upon thousands of pro-life advocates who come from all over the nation to participate. Quint, Matt, Dick and Claire and I were there this year and over the next few days, I'll be posting comments and photos from our own experience. I hope you find them of interest.

If you've got the time, you can even watch and listen to the speakers who addressed the crowd before we marched. Those speakers include President Bush, March for Life organizer Nellie Gray, Sam Brownback, Chris Smith, and many more. The video is on this C-Span page. I think you'll find it very inspirational.

By the way, virtually the only MSM news coverage of the March for Life does come via C-Span and so I suggest an e-mail be zipped along to the organization to thank them. The address is: viewer@c-span.org

To Washington for the March

Claire, Dick, Matt, Quint and I are off for Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life, the pro-life bloggers conference and more. I'll be back on the blog next Tuesday.

Can Nebraskans Stop the Cloning?

Greg Schleppenbach, director of the Bishops' Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, sent along this important "action alert" for Nebraska pro-life advocates. Please respond quickly.

On Wednesday, the last day of bill introduction in the Nebraska Legislature, Sen. Mark Christensen (District 44, Imperial) introduced LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. This bill prohibits the cloning of human embryos for any reason. It is identical to the bill introduced 2 years ago by Sen. (now Congressman) Adrian Smith.

Sen. Christensen is a freshman senator (replacing Sen. Tom Baker) and has shown great courage in sponsoring this bill which, if past years are any indication, will be strongly opposed by the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Sen. Ernie Chambers (who filibusters any pro-life bill). The bill can be seen here...

...I strongly encourage each of you to send two quick, but very important e-mails:

1) Please e-mail Sen. Christensen to thank him for introducing LB 700 and to ensure him of your prayers for the success of this bill. Sen. Christensen’s e-mail is mchristensen@leg.ne.gov

2) If your senator is already a cosponsor (one of those listed here), please e-mail him/her with thanks for cosponsoring the bill. Click here to get your senator’s contact information. Christensen (District 44); Burling (District 33); Carlson (District 38); Dierks (District 40); Dubas (District 34); Engel (District 17); Erdman (District 47); Flood (District 19); Friend (District 10); Fulton (District 29); Hansen (District 42); Harms (District 48); Heidemann (District 1); Hudkins (District 21); Langemeier (District 23); Lathrop (District 12); Nelson (District 6); Pedersen (District 39); Pirsch (District 4); Preister (District 5); Wallman (District 30) and Wightman (District 36).

Of course, if your senator has not yet co-sponsored the bill, e-mail him/her and encourage him/her to cosponsor the bill. Click here to get your senator’s contact information. Your message can say simply, “As your constituent, I urge you to co-sponsor LB 700, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. This bill would prohibit the cloning of human embryos and would establish a clear ethical line that says it is wrong to manufacture human life solely for use in medical research.”

Alexandra Pelosi's Film About Evangelicals Coming to HBO

Yes, as in that Pelosi.

Alexandra is the writer/filmmaker daughter of the Speaker of the House and so one might be excused for thinking that the documentary might be, oh...at least a little biased. Here's a look at "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi" from ABC News which includes a few real head-scratching moments, including the ones I print below about the rock musician Moby, Ted Haggard, et al.

..."The political aspect of it makes me crazy," says Moby, who says he used to be an evangelical Christian. "The more the Republican Party caters to the evangelicals, the more they go outside the mainstream and we saw it with issues like stem cell research and the Terri Schiavo case."...

...In "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi" the former network news producer had extensive interviews with The Rev. Ted Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who resigned after admitting to meeting with a male prostitute and buying illegal drugs. Pelosi finished the film before the Haggard scandal emerged.

At one point in the documentary, Haggard is seen standing outside his church talking to young men in his congregation, when he turns to Pelosi (and the camera) and tells her that surveys have found that evangelicals enjoy the best sex lives.

Haggard then turns to the young parishioners and asks them, "How many times a week do you have sex with your wife? How many times does she climax?"

On the political power of evangelicals, Haggard says, "We can crash the Capitol switchboard system. That's power."...

...James Crestwood of Washington D.C., also an evangelical Christian, says a lot of evangelicals feel misled by the Republican Party. "They've been in power for 12 years and nothing has changed on abortion, gay marriage, the budget is out of whack. It's time for a change."

"They've Got To Be Carefully Taught"

Remember that line from the musical, "South Pacific"? The song emphasized how early childhood training creates lifelong attitudes and patterns of behavior. And it didn't require special insight to agree with the common-sense truth of that lyric.

In fact, even Alexandria education "professionals"understand that if you want to insure certain beliefs in adults (like, say...an acceptance of even the grossest, most dangerous sexual perversions), you gotta' get to the kids.

Here's a story from the National Examiner about how those educators sought to slip an extremist agenda by parents, clergy and community leaders. And they may well get away with it yet.

Freedom of Speech Gets a Reprieve -- For Now

Whew! The U.S. Senate has passed their version of an ethics and lobby reform bill yesterday but, thank the Lord, the outrageous section that would have eliminated a lot of grassroots lobbying was defeated. That section was aimed especially at conservative groups that promote citizens to write, call and e-mail their political representatives about major moral issues. The section thus represented a clear violation of the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech, redress of grievance, and freedom of the press...so much so that even the ACLU had to argue against the measure.

And yet, so strong is the spirit of injustice and coercive power raging in the Democrat Party that 43 Senators voted against the amendment introduced by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) to strip the grassroots lobbying provision from the larger bill.

Amazing.

So, I certainly applaud the passage of the bill (with the tyrannical censorship of free speech removed) but I would argue that many other violations of ethics remain protected. And that 43 Senators dared to commit themselves to such a grievously unconstitutional power play as the original version of S. 1 represented is a tragic and very dangerous scandal.

So, thank you to Senator Bennett and the others who voted for the amendment (including 7 Democrats who I believe deserve our special gratitude) and a big, big raspberry to the irresponsible crowd of churls (all Democrats) who voted in favor.

Those folks are: Akaka (D-HI); Biden (D-DE); Bingaman (D-NM); Boxer (D-CA); Brown (D-OH); Byrd (D-WV); Cantwell (D-WA); Cardin (D-MD); Carper (D-DE); Casey (D-PA); Clinton (D-NY); Dodd (D-CT); Durbin (D-IL); Feingold (D-WI); Feinstein (D-CA); Harkin (D-IA); Inouye (D-HI); Kennedy (D-MA); Kerry (D-MA); Klobuchar (D-MN); Kohl (D-WI); Lautenberg (D-NJ); Leahy (D-VT); Levin (D-MI); Lieberman (ID-CT); Lincoln (D-AR); McCaskill (D-MO); Menendez (D-NJ); Mikulski (D-MD); Murray (D-WA); Nelson (D-FL); Obama (D-IL); Pryor (D-AR); Reed (D-RI); Reid (D-NV); Rockefeller (D-WV); Sanders (I-VT); Schumer (D-NY); Stabenow (D-MI); Tester (D-MT); Webb (D-VA); Whitehouse (D-RI); and Wyden (D-OR).

A Closer, Clearer Look at Jimmy Carter

Even if you never read anything else about Jimmy Carter, I urge you to take the time to read "Our Worst Ex-President" by Joshua Muravchik, just published in Commentary Magazine. It is lengthy (6 pages) but the careful argument and documentation (plus, of course, Cater's long and very weird record) requires this. Even so, you'll find Muravchik's piece anything but tedious. It is an excellent, disturbing and very important expose' and I recommend it as highly as anything I've suggested in weeks.

Here are just a few excerpts:

...But just as he had once reversed himself dramatically on the subject of race, so now, upon his election as President, Carter began at once to lay the groundwork for foreign policies that were the opposite of those he had led the voters to believe he intended to pursue. This was made manifest even before his inauguration as he went about staffing his administration. George McGovern was quoted as saying that most of Carter’s State Department appointees were “quite close to those I would have made myself.” Meanwhile, Carter excluded the Scoop Jackson wing of the party almost entirely from his administration. His surprising tilt away from anti-Communism was made explicit in his first major foreign-policy address when he proclaimed: “we are now free of th[e] inordinate fear of Communism. . . . We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water...”

...The effect was exacerbated by one of Carter’s personality tics, strange in a man who boasted so often of his honesty: a compulsion to engage in flattery. At times, this could manifest itself toward a rightist ally like the Shah of Iran. Just months before the outbreak of the revolution that culminated in his toppling, Carter declared in a toast that Iran was an “island of stability” thanks to the “love which your people give you.” But the impulse expressed itself most strongly toward leftist strongmen. Carter hailed Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito as “a man who believes in human rights” and as a “great and courageous leader” who “has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last forty years.” Visiting Poland, then ruled by the Stalinist hack Edward Gierek, he offered a toast to its “enlightened leaders” and declared that “our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland . . . much better than other European nations with which I am familiar.” He outdid himself in receiving Romania’s iron-fisted ruler, Nicolae Ceausescu, enthusing:

"Our goals are the same, to have a just system of economics and politics, to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom, and in the benefits to be derived from the proper utilization of natural resources. We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people."

Carter’s weakness for dictators and his courtship of America’s enemies not only clouded his human-rights policy, it also contributed to a flaccid approach to security issues, thus adding momentum to America’s strategic decline following defeat in Vietnam. In several corners of Africa, Asia, and the Western hemisphere, Communist or other radical regimes took power, spearheaded by revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua...

...America’s options in dealing with Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions were never attractive, but they are worse now than they were before Carter’s self-aggrandizing intervention. In 1994, a military strike against North Korean nuclear facilities would have been perilous, but it was an important option to have available and may have been our best choice, as some senior military and diplomatic figures argued at the time. Today, a strike against a nuclear-armed North Korea would be infinitely more perilous. In short, America is in more difficult straits and the world is more dangerous as a direct result of Carter’s actions...

...When it comes to Israel, it would take a book to catalogue all of Carter’s false or wildly misleading statements on matters historical, political, military, and diplomatic. Kenneth Stein, a Middle East expert at the Carter Center who had helped write The Blood of Abraham, resigned to protest the latest book. “It is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments,” Stein wrote. “Aside from the one-sided nature of the book . . . there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book.”

What is to explain Carter’s passion against Israel? This question is not easy to answer. A recent article in the online journal FrontPage enumerated some of the millions of dollars that the Carter Center receives from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Arab states, but it is hard to know whether this is inducement or merely a benefit of Carter’s position. It is also true that opposition to Israel fits seamlessly into the ex-President’s leftist/third-worldist outlook in general. But this too does not explain the blind intensity of his obsession...

...Ever since his presidency, there has been a wide gap between Carter’s estimation of himself and the esteem in which other Americans hold him. This has manifestly embittered him. For all his talk of “love,” the driving motives behind his post-presidential ventures seem, in fact, to be bitterness together with narcissism (as it happens, two prime ingredients of a martyr complex). But he has worked hard to earn the reputation he enjoys. In contravention of the elementary responsibilities of loyalty for one in his position, he has denigrated American policies and leaders in his public and private discussions in foreign lands. He has undertaken personal diplomacy to thwart the policies of the men elected to succeed him. And in doing so he has, at least in the case of North Korea, actively damaged our security.

At home, Carter’s criticisms of the policies of his successors are offered up with reckless abandon. For example, when the Patriot Act and related measures curtailed the rights of defendants accused of terrorism, Carter editorialized that “in many nations, defenders of human rights were the first to feel the consequences.” The charge was simply a concoction, and not a single example was offered to substantiate it. In this manner, Carter has made himself a willing hook on which foreigners can hang their anti-American feelings. When he was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, the chairman of the committee allowed that the award “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg to all who follow the same line as the United States...”

...There is little doubt, in sum, that the electorate was right in 1980 when it judged Carter to be among our worst Presidents. It is even more certain that history will judge him to have been our very worst ex-President.

Global Warming Gal Wants to De-Certify Scientists Who Disagree With Her

In America, certain people seek to deny professional status for anybody that disagrees with the pack -- despite whatever facts the dissidents can marshal against what passes for today's version of political-correctness. We've effectively done this in matters of abortion, Darwinian evolution, traditional gender and sexuality issues, parental authority, historical revisionism, religion, property rights, and more. And now, we're poised to do it with global warming.

Check out this call by the Weather Channel's chief climatoligist that scientists who do not agree with her views be stripped of their certification.

You can't make these things up, folks.

Langevin Invites Michael J. Fox to State of the Union

In a move clearly caculated to upstage President Bush at the State of the Union message next week, Democrat Congressman from Rhode Island, Jim Langevin, an aggressive proponent of embryonic stem cell research, will have as his personal guest, actor Michael J. Fox, whose advocacy ads for ESCR created such an emotional stir in last fall's elections. Langevin, who has generally voted against abortion just can't see the inconsistency of his philosophy nor has he faced the scientific evidence that reveals over and over again that ESCR (no matter what its hype) is a "dead end."

Obama Votes Against Key Reform Measure

Dick Morris says Barack Obama has just made his first major mistake and that Hillary Clinton will certainly make sure it comes back to haunt him. Read the column here.

Who Dared to Call America a Christian Nation?

Jeff Jacoby answers the question --

He was a man of faith who didn't hesitate to mix religion with politics. He headed an assertive political organization with the word "Christian" in its name. He believed his moral values should be reflected in US law and legally imposed on those who resisted them. He invoked "God Almighty" in his speeches and compared himself to Moses, the prophet Amos, and other biblical heroes. He condemned public policies he opposed in overtly religious terms -- as "a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ," for example. He shrugged off those who called him an extremist. "Was not Jesus an extremist?" he asked.

He wasn't one to fetishize church-state separation. "I want it to be known . . . throughout this nation that we are Christian people," he declared. "We believe in the Christian religion. We believe in the teachings of Jesus."

He was what some today might call a religious fanatic, a theocrat, or (as a US senator said of the president last year) a "moral ayatollah." He was, in many circles, decidedly unpopular.

He was also a Nobel laureate for peace and a champion of human dignity. He was an American hero. He was Martin Luther King Jr.

The NY Times: Still Distorting the Duke Lacrosse Case

Ann Coulter's Human Events column focuses on the Times' remarkable bias in their coverage of the Duke lacrosse team vs the stripteaser (an inexplicable bias, at that) but she also brings in very important facts about Sgt. Mark Gottlieb that the Times completely ignores. Gottlieb is one of the police officers in the case,and both his long-after-the-fact memos and his record with Duke students are truly alarming.

Here are some excerpts:

Stuart Taylor Jr., the liberal but brilliant legal reporter for the National Journal, described the New York Times' coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case as "(w)orse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments." For a newspaper that carries Maureen Dowd's column, that's saying something...

...The first part of the story -- the lie part -- was angrily reported in the Times. But as the accuser's story began to unravel, the Times gave only a selective account of the facts, using its famed lie-by-omission technique.

Among the many gigantic omissions from the Times' pretend-balanced article ("Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers") is the fact that the only remaining particulars about the case that are not completely exculpatory come from a memo by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb -- written four months after the alleged incident.

Gottlieb, the lead investigator on the alleged rape case, took no contemporaneous notes when he interviewed the accuser, but rather waited for the facts to come in -- and his case to be falling apart -- to write a memo recalling her statements during that initial investigation. The statements he recalled were surprisingly favorable to the prosecution!

The only problem with his memo, besides being preposterous on its face, is that it is contradicted by the contemporaneous notes taken by other people involved in the investigation. Indeed, the only thing Gottlieb's memo was consistent with were the facts as the prosecution was then alleging them...

...In repeatedly citing Gottlieb's after-the-fact memo as if it were the Rosetta stone of the case, the Times also neglected to mention Gottlieb's dark history with Duke students.

Gottlieb repeatedly jailed Duke students charged with minor infractions such as carrying an open beer or playing loud music, often throwing them in cells with violent criminals. He was not so tough on nonstudents, releasing one caught with marijuana and a concealed .45-caliber handgun.

A review of Gottlieb's record published in the Raleigh News & Observer showed that, in the previous year, when he patrolled an area that included both a "crime-ridden" public housing project and Duke off-campus housing, he arrested 20 Duke students and only eight nonstudents. During that same period, the three other officers in that district arrested two Duke students and 61 nonstudents...

And, by the way, if you'd like to also read the Stuart Taylor Jr. article that Ann refers to, you'll find it over here.

Obama's "Difficulties" Reported by ABC News

A prominent story from ABC News which plays up the "difficulties" of a Barack Obama presidential bid?

Hmm. I guess Hillary made a couple of phone calls.

No "Surge" on Proposed Troop Surge

From the Evans-Novak Political Report comes this commentary on the proposed "troop surge:"

...President Bush's attempt to sell the new Iraq policy to the nation backfired -- the public's disapproval of the idea of a troop surge is higher now than it was before President Bush tried to sell the policy.

A sense of impending political doom clutches Republican hearts. It is exacerbated by the alarming intelligence brought back from Baghdad by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.) and passed around Capitol Hill. In a pre-Christmas visit to Iraq, Coleman and Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser. Coleman described their astounding encounter in a December 19 blog post: "Dr. Rubaie maintains that the major challenge facing Iraq is not a sectarian conflict but rather al Qaeda and disgruntled Baathists seeking to regain power. Both Sen. Nelson and I react with incredulity to that assessment. Rubaie cautions against more troops in Baghdad."

In other words, the Iraqi government is denying the obvious reality of sectarian violence on the ground, acting as though nothing has changed about the Iraq insurgency since it began. The reason is that despite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's lip service to cracking down on Shiite militants, his government's political support is inextricably tied to their military leader, Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki's failure even to show up for a scheduled press conference to comment on Bush's new strategy, and his continued silence, underscore this fact..

This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating situation as soon as possible. Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006.

Many Republican congressmen have tied their hopes to Bush's pledge that Iraqi forces will take over local security by September. But they do not know how that victory can be achieved if the Iraqi government is tied to the Shiite militia, a political problem in Iraq that no increase in U.S. troops can solve. They can only hope that the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now...

A Clearer Look at the Stem Cell Controversy

Following a snowy, cold but wonderful Walk for Life last Saturday in Lincoln, Nebraska, the crowd of hearty pro-life advocates gathered at the NU Student Center heard a informative, challenging presentation about stem cell research from Dr. Sheryl Pitner, Chip Maxwell, and Greg Schleppenbach. All of the speakers are heavily involved with the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research. The talks (plus a detailed power point presentation) were all excellent with clear, relevant information that the community desperately needs to hear.

Fortuanately, these speakers (especially the NCER Director, Chip Maxwell) are ready and very willing to come to your church, Sunday School class, civic meeting, home group, or professional association to give you the side of the stem cell controversy that you probably won't hear from mainstream media.

So, please consider this opportunity to make NCER's resources a part of your pro-life outreach. Just zip on over to the NCER web site right here.

Fighting Intelligent Design

The Guardian (U.K.) plays an ingenious pro-evolution game in its online edition. Part one of the game is to publish a defense of Darwinian theory by James Randerson. Part two is to allow a brief counter-commentary defending intelligent design by Richard Buggs.

But then, part three, comes into play. After the Buggs piece, the Guardian publishes a long, long series of responses with almost all of them extremely antagonistic. Many are quite emotional, many mean-spirited and a couple are even longer than the Buggs column itself.

The end result of the game is that the reader is left with a distorted, derisive picture of intelligent design theory. In that neverending comment section, there's a lot of heat, a lot of illogical attacks, and a lot of hooting against minds darkened by religion...but very little rational, science-based argument.

And, of course, it is only in such an atmosphere that Darwinism can survive.

Amazing Grace: Volunteers Still Needed to Fight the Slave Trade

Chuck Colson has an important column today dealing with William Wilberforce and the crying need to finish his great campaign against the slave trade. Read that column here.

You might also want to check out the upcoming Hollywood film about William Wilberforce, Amazing Grace. The movie's official web site is right here. After watching the theatrical trailer there, be sure to check out the section on The Amazing Change, including the anti-slavery petition you can sign.

Jimmy Carter's New Non-Baptist Baptists

"I think Carter and Clinton want to keep Baptist as an identity, but they want to do so by gutting what most Southern Baptists believe in, such as authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," said Kevin Shrum, pastor of Inglewood Baptist Church in Nashville.

"My question is: Are they going to produce literature, start a seminary, do world or local missions or, from what it appears to me, is this just a front for political activity for churches and individuals who agree with their positions?"

This news story from the Tennessean ("middle Tennessee's #1 online news source") is predictably weighted but there are a few worthwhile moments. The above comment is one of them.

A clearer picture is painted by John-Henry Westen in this article written for the Christian Post. For instance, Mr. Westen quotes more of the the principal players, gives much more background, and puts the move in a broader context. Here are a few excerpts:

...While Clinton with his staunch abortion support, womanizing and support for homosexuality may have little concern for his being seen as a faithful Baptist, the situation is very different for Carter. While he did support abortion, and homosexuality, Carter's stands on these issues were more nuanced than those of Clinton. Moreover, Carter has distinguished himself, following his short stint as leader of the United States, through his charitable initiatives, prime among them Habitat for Humanity.

While many would see it as just another attempt to water down Christianity to the level of political correctness, Carter evidently sees his initiative as something special. "This is a historic event for the Baptists in this country and perhaps for Christianity," Carter said at a press conference announcing the convocation...

...Carter's views on Christian religion insist on the allowance of women pastors, on a focus on the poor, peace, the environment, and avoidance of the hurtful, divisive issues of abortion and homosexuality.

Morris H. Chapman, President of the SBC Executive Committee, has noted in the past that Carter was originally embraced by Baptist conservatives in 1976 when he publicly described himself as a born-again Christian. Chapman suggests that Carter lost favor with conservative Christians after such actions as appointing Sarah Weddington – the lead attorney in the landmark 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade – to a White House position when he was assistant to the president.

With regard to homosexuality Carter would allow for homosexual “marriage” but says he would not force churches to perform homosexual weddings. In an interview with the homosexual publication The Advocate in January 2006, Carter said of homosexual “marriage”: "If an individual church or synagogue doesn't want to have marriage vows expressed by gay people, I think that ought to be a religious decision. But under no circumstances do I think a gay couple ought to be deprived of their rights as citizens..."

The Democrat's H.R. 4 Victory: Bad Medicine

Despite concerted opposition from pro-life advocates, HR 4 won its Congressional vote, 225 to 170. If it becomes law, Medicare will be better positioned to ration health care -- another shell game by which "care containment" masquerades innocently as mere "cost containment." Here's Steven Ertelt's story about the issue from Life.News.com.

And here are a few remarks from one of the Congressmen who voted against the bill, Nebraska's own Lee Terry...

I voted against legislation that would restrict seniors' access to critical, life-saving drugs and also restrict efficiency in the private sector's proven ability to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, as we have seen during this first year of the new Medicare Prescription drug benefit.

We must continue to bring down the costs of prescription drugs, but the Democrat Drug Price Negotiation Act (H.R. 4) would do nothing to address issues such as the so-called "donut hole," which is one area where improvement is needed in Medicare Part D.

The Medicare Modernization law of 2003 was an important first step in providing a modern health plan for seniors including prescription drug coverage, while allowing cost-control in a free market, which lowers prices. Adoption of H.R. 4 would be a setback to the progress that has been made to ensure seniors have the health care they need.

Good job, Lee!

Of course, thanks are in order to Congressman Terry and the others who voted against H.R. 4. And letters, calls and e-mails are also in order to the President to urge his veto of this bad bill.

Lee Terry
(Local)
11717 Burt Street, Suite 106
Omaha, NE 68154
Phone: 402-397-9944

(Washington Offices)
1524 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-4155

Web site: http://leeterry.house.gov
E-mail form page

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comment Line: 202-456-1111
comments@whitehouse.gov. D