Sharron Angle, God & Mainstream Media

RE: Nevada GOP candidate Sharron Angle challenging Senator Harry Reid . . .

Out of touch with America, the liberal media think that it's extreme, out of the mainstream, and even ridiculous to believe that God is omnipotent, while government is impotent.

-- From "Sharron Angle: Democrats Making 'Government Our God'" by Stephanie Condon, CBS News 8/4/10

Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle told a Christian radio station earlier this year that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are violating the Bible's First Commandment by turning government into a false god.

Angle's remarks were highlighted by the Las Vegas Sun as an illustration of her relatively extreme views, which pundits have suggested are making a tight race out of what should have been an easy GOP victory over unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," Angle said in an April interview with TruNews Christian Radio. "And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

Angle has used strong religious rhetoric before, characterizing her candidacy as a "calling" from God. Angle's words have given some Nevada voters pause: "She talks to the far Christian right, but that's about it," Las Vegas resident Michele Ficano told Hotsheet.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Angle: Democrats want to 'make government our God'" by Michael R. Blood, Associated Press 8/4/10

. . . Angle describes her effort to oust Majority Leader Harry Reid as a religious calling in "a war of ideology, it's a war of thoughts and of faith."

Reid's campaign said in a statement Wednesday that Angle's statements are "frightening." Since Angle won the GOP nomination in June, Reid's campaign has depicted the tea party favorite in TV ads as an extremist who would gut federal programs and turn her back on those in need.

Angle's campaign pointed out that Reid, too, has spoken about the relationship between politics and his Mormon religion. In a speech at Brigham Young University in 2007, he said, "My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."

Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician and prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Asked why she would enter a race to challenge the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, Angle said, "We're at war in this country, for our freedom, our culture, for our liberty, our Constitution."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Senate Leader Harry Reid Suddenly Claims Pro-life Mantle

Pro-life senators are optimistic that the Senate health care bill will fully limit federal funding of abortion, given Reid's new statement (apparently he's noticed the latest polls showing most Americans are pro-life).

-- From "Harry Reid Responds to Critics of Abortion Funding in Senate Health Care Bill by Saying He Opposes Abortion" by Karen Schuberg, CNSNews.com 12/3/09

In an interview with CNSNews.com on Nov. 1, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said, “. . . I believe Harry Reid would be on our [pro-life] side on this.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), author of the Senate health-care bill that permits taxpayer dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion, responded to letters protesting the abortion funding in the bill with a letter of his own saying that he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when there is a threat to the life of the mother.

Reid’s health-care reform bill, which he released Nov. 18, allows the public option to include abortion coverage, permits federal subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover abortion, and even mandates that the secretary of health and human services make certain that at least one insurance plan available in the insurance exchange where people will buy insurance with federal subsidies covers abortion. The abortion language in Reid's bill mirrors the abortion language that was in the House health care bill before it was superceded by an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) that prohibits any tax dollars from going to health insurance plans that cover abortion.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Senate Bill Funds Abortion, Gives White House Prerogative

The health care bill released yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempts to hide sizeable funding of abortion, and authorizes the Obama administration to decide on further funding, all under the "public option."

Illinois residents: Click here to E-mail President Obama, Sens. Durbin & Burris, and your own congressman -- takes less than 60 seconds.

-- From "Senate Wording Angers Abortion Opponents" by Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times 11/18/09

In seeking to fend off a major revolt by supporters of abortion rights, Democratic leaders in the Senate have infuriated abortion opponents with their new version of health care legislation.

The National Right to Life Committee called the Senate language “completely unacceptable.”

The Senate bill drops some of the restrictive abortion language that was part of the House health care bill. But it contains an ambiguous provision that could bar any government-run insurance plan, or public option, from providing abortion coverage.

The Senate bill says that no federal funding can be used to pay for abortion coverage, which is language that abortion-rights supporters have accepted for decades.

But it also says that any public option could not provide insurance for abortions unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services [Kathleen Sebelius] determined that a payment plan would not use federal money.

This provision to allow the health secretary to determine whether a payment plan passed muster seems open to interpretation. An administration that supported abortion rights could include plans that might be excluded by an administration that opposed abortion rights, and vice versa.

[The bill] seemed to satisfy some Senators who support abortion rights.
The Senate language is not likely to end discussion of abortion as part of the health care debate, but instead to provoke it further.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pro-Life Groups: Reid's Senate Health Care Bill Contains Massive Abortion Funding" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 11/19/09

"Reid has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs," National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson assured LifeNews.com late Wednesday.

"Reid seeks to cover elective abortions in two big new federal health programs, but tries to conceal that unpopular reality with layers of contrived definitions and hollow bookkeeping requirements," he continued.

Johnson notes that Reid's bill establishes the public option and authorizes (on page 118) the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require coverage of any and all abortions throughout the public option program.

"This would be federal government funding of abortion, no matter how hard they try to disguise it," he says.

Attorney Mary Harned of Americans United for Life, has also examined the abortion sections of Reid's new measure, which she says "provides for an unprecedented expansion of federally-funded abortion."

Harned says the bill does not reflect the principles of the Hyde amendment, which, since the 1970s, has been used to stop taxpayer funded abortions under Medicaid,

Reid's release of the bill comes after a new CNN poll showing a strong majority of Americans oppose government funding of abortions and oppose all or most abortions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Senate Pushes Anti-christian Judge Confirmation

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced his plans to move forward as early as Monday with a confirmation vote on the pro-abortion appeals court nominee who ruled against praying "in Jesus' name" on the floor of the Indiana Legislature.

-- From "Conservatives Oppose Judicial Nominee" by Kate Phillips, New York Times 11/12/09

Conservative groups have been rallying their troops to urge senators to oppose the nomination of Judge David F. Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

As recently as Thursday morning, Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, labeled Judge Hamilton as too liberal during a speech before the Federalist Society. Advocates and supporters of Judge Hamilton have also jumped into the fray.

The moves afoot followed a decision by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to file a procedural motion on Tuesday night that will likely force a vote early next week that will require the support of 60 members to push the nomination forward.

The two Hamilton decisions most often cited by critics are one that struck down the use of Christian prayer by Indiana state lawmakers, and another that struck down a segment of a state law requiring informed consent and a waiting period for women seeking abortions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Reid speeds confirmation of anti-Jesus, pro-abortion judge" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 11/12/09

Republicans have attempted to block a vote on Hamilton's nomination. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for a filibuster in April and May. Sessions recently sent a letter to several Republican legislators in opposition to Hamilton, warning that in more than a few instances, he "has used his position as a district court judge to drive a political agenda."

Sessions said Hamilton declared in a 2003 speech that a judge's primary job is "write footnotes in the Constitution" and said he believes "empathy" should sway a judge's decisions.

"This view evidences an activist judicial philosophy," Sessions warned. "Judges are not given the power to amend the Constitution or write footnotes to it."

Also, in 2003, Hamilton struck down an Indiana informed consent law requiring women to receive information about risks and alternatives to abortion in the presence of a physician or nurse 18 hours before the procedure. Hamilton said the provision imposed an "undue burden" on women. His ruling was later dismissed by a panel of the 7th Circuit after appeal.

"In reversing, the 7th Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused his judicial discretion," Sessions wrote.

Hamilton made yet another controversial ruling in the 2005 case Hinrichs v. Bosma. He ruled that the speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives could not allow "sectarian" prayers as part of its official proceedings. He said prayers that use "Christ's name or title" are sectarian, but he ruled in a post-judgment motion that it's not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to "Allah."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama, Reid, other Congressmen Push Homosexuals in Military

To liberal Americans, who worship Europe and other nations, the world's greatest defense establishment (the American military) is seen as just a playground for their sexualization experiments.

UPDATE 9/30/09: Boston Globe implies Pentagon wants to rescind ban on homosexuals in military

-- From "Reid Backs Plan to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy" by Carl Hulse, posted at The New York Times 7/14/09

With a possible fight brewing in Congress over repeal of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, came down . . . solidly in favor of eliminating the ban.

“We’re having trouble getting people into the military,” Mr. Reid told reporters when questioned about whether he could support an 18-month moratorium on enforcing a prohibition on gays in the armed forces. “And I think that we shouldn’t turn down anybody that’s willing to fight for our country, certainly based on sexual orientation.”

Mr. Reid said he would go the proposal, being considered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, one better and support a permanent repeal of the ban.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Allies' stance cited in US gays-in-military debate" by David Crary, The Associated Press 7/13/09

When it comes to dealing with gay personnel in the ranks, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries - and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides as Americans renew debate over the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In the United States, more than 12,000 service members - including dozens of highly trained Arabic linguists - have been dismissed since 1994 because it became known they were gay. . . .

In Britain, on the other hand, gay and lesbian service members marched in crisp uniforms in the annual Pride London parade July 4. Gay Australian soldiers and sailors had their own float in Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras parade. In Israel, the army magazine earlier this year featured two male soldiers on the cover, hugging one another.

America's "don't ask, don't tell" policy - which prohibits gays from serving openly in the armed forces - is the target of intensifying opposition, and President Barack Obama says he favors lifting the ban. But he wants to win over skeptics in Congress and the Pentagon, and a fierce debate lies ahead that will inevitably touch on the experiences of allied nations that have no bans.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.

"We are the military leaders in the world - everybody wants to be like us," said Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers. "Why in the world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"

To read this very lengthy review of homosexuals in militaries around the world, CLICK HERE.

Senate to Pass Hate Crimes as Amendment to Defense Bill

In an effort to end Christian witness in America, homosexual advocates in the Senate connive to attach the hate crimes legislation (having already passed in the House as a standalone bill) to troop funding, expected to pass in mid-July.

-- From "Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 7/3/09

David Smith, HRC’s vice president of programs, said in a June 26 statement to the Blade that the Senate would probably pass the bill in this way.

“The [Department of Defense] authorization bill as well as other vehicles have been under consideration since House passage earlier this year,” he said. “Between now and the August recess, DOD appears to be the most likely candidate for hate crimes.”

A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill.

[In contrast,] A standalone bill submitted to the Senate floor would be vulnerable to dangerous amendments, such as a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in D.C., the he said. [Read about, and view last week's Senate hearings on the bill by clicking here.]

Smith said a vote on the defense bill is tentatively scheduled in the Senate by mid July, but added that “as with any Senate scheduled bill, that could change.”

Upon hearing of the Senate’s plan, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “disappointed” the Senate settled on this method of passage. But he added “we could still be all right” because the House passed its version of the defense bill with a bigger margin than he expected.

The Senate aide noted that Reid had pledged to pass hate crime legislation by August recess and said the defense bill is the only option as a vehicle before that time.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Harry Reid on Abortion: More Tax Dollars to Planned Parenthood

Congressional liberals can't spend it fast enough! Prevention First Act to dig deficit hole deeper by sending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to Planned Parenthood.

Tell them to stop the baby killing!
Illinois residents, CLICK HERE to E-mail your congressman

Washington, DC — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chair Diana DeGette (D-CO) today introduced the Prevention First Act [S.21 and H.R.463], legislation that will improve access to women's health care, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce abortions [sic] – all while saving scarce public health dollars.

-- From "Senate Leader Files 'Prevention First' Bill Sending Millions to Abortion Industry" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 1/9/09

The bill would prohibit health insurance plans from excluding coverage for birth control drugs and devices.

It would also require the federal Health Department to provide information on the morning after pill to all health care providers. Hospitals that receive any federal funds would be forced to give out the drug, which can sometimes cause an abortion, to women who have been raped.
But it is the bailout of the abortion industry that most concerns Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council.

"Reid sent a very clear message about what pro-lifers can expect from the next two years by introducing [the bill]," Perkins told LifeNews.com. "The Prevention First Act would direct hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, a business that already receives over $286 million each year from federal taxpayers."

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business and the likely recipient of the bulk of the funding, praised the introduction of the bill in a press release.

The Family Research Council is also concerned about the morning after pill portion of the bill and Perkins said the measure would mislead women about the drug without warning them that it has the potential to cause an abortion in some circumstances if taken after conception has occurred.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Declared 'Incompetent' Because of His Beliefs Regarding Sex Outside of Marriage...

From "Killing a Career" by Chuck Colson, posted 6/28/07 at Breakpoint.org

I have what some might consider the macabre habit of reading the casualty reports from Iraq every day in the New York Times. This may reflect the fact that I served in the military or that I worked in the White House during Vietnam.

But there's one name that hasn't yet appeared in the casualty reports: the name of General Peter Pace, the first Marine—and I say this with pride as a former Marine—to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Why am I looking for Pace's name on the casualty list? His distinguished military career was recently ended by the crudest kind of politics.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared Pace, a four-star Marine general with 48 military decorations on his chest, to be "incompetent."

What incredible effrontery. Reid—who never wore the uniform—could have said he didn't agree with Pace's decisions or with the politically unpopular war in Iraq. He could have said he disliked the way Pace executed his responsibilities in advising the President.

But incompetent?

This kind of public disparagement of a military hero is disgraceful.

But Pace's career didn't end merely because of Reid's shoddy remarks. Pace, a faithful Catholic, also offended the secular god of Tolerance. He had the audacity to say that he believed sex outside of marriage was wrong, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

The New York Times instantly declared him a bigot. The rest of the media pack followed suit; few defended him. We are in real trouble, folks, if America's number one military officer cannot defend the proposition that the military should exemplify high moral standards.


We've must to start speaking up wherever we are and begin to put an end to this insanity.

Read the rest of this commentary.