Gosnell brutally 'snipped' babies' spinal cords, but Big Media don't care.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster

LifeNews.com  March 24, 2013

This past week was the first week in the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia-based abortion practitioner who is behind some of the most gruesome acts that have ever been committed in the abortion industry.
In the City of Brotherly Love, this man practiced a kind of hatred towards women and unborn children that is both beyond the pale in terms of its shock and horror but also reflective of the attitude the abortion industry has about the value of human life.
Kermit Gosnell was no ordinary abortion practitioner. He would jab scissors into the necks of tiny unborn babies who had already passed the point of viability and could live on their own.
Not only would he "snip" the spinal cords of these babies, an untrained staffer admitted this week that she would also use medical scissors intended to help bring forth new life to subject babies to a horrific death.
As is often the case, LifeNews.com is leading the way in reporting on and exposing what happened and how the trial is going in Pennsylvania. We've had stories with hard news about the trial itself and what prosecutors are doing to hold Kermit Gosnell and his employees accountable. LifeNews has also featured analysis and opinion from top writers about the implications of this important trial.
But outside of LifeNews, local news outlets, and sympathetic conservative and Christian media, you're not seeing much in the mainstream media about these horrors.
Earlier this week, LifeNews carried a piece from a media watchdog who noted that, as of that writing, ABC, CBS, and NBC’s morning and evening newscasts have yet to cover the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, which began on Monday.
An abortion practitioner may go to jail for the rest of his life or even face the death penalty for dozens and dozens of cases of brutal infanticide and the big networks haven't covered it at all on their newscasts?
Maybe there's too much reality television to report on instead of covering the reality of abortion.
LifeNews will not be silent as the trial continues, but we need your help to continue covering it and to broadcast news about Kermit Gosnell to even more people.

Via Facebook and USA DOT COM, Verne Strickland is proud to assist with coverage of the trial of baby killer Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia.


Via the Christian company CornerStone Payment Systems, you can make a donation using any credit card or an electronic check. You can also elect to become a monthly or quarterly donor. Click here or click on the donation button:

N&O columnist flails McCrory on budget -- "not the stuff of which legacies are made"

NC Governor Pat McCrory



By Verne Strickland / March 22, 2013

Please read this. It will remind you again of why liberal Democrats are smitten by pie in the sky, then spend themselves and the government into the poor house. And don't care. 

These are a few lines of a blog by Rob Christensen -- political blogger at the News & Observer. I have always liked and respected Rob even though in my considered opinion his stuff was pretty liberal.

More recently, he seems to have edged closer to that dreaded line which states clearly, "I'm not moderate, and if I were I wouldn't admit it."

Past sins aside, I had a vision prompted by Rob's recent column about Governor Pat McCrory's budget proposal for the State.

In the vision, I saw what really makes liberals so loose with the money. Not their money. Your money.

I'm going to reveal some portions of Rob's column and drop in a few personal notes to demonstrate what I mean. 

According to writer Christensen, McCrory's budget suggested that he is "a pragmatic, moderate conservative, not a Tea Party Republican. The budget colored him an incrementalist with a modest vision of what government can or should accomplish."

Verne: Excuse me? Are we now complaining that Pat has no imagination or flair for accomplishment and growth because he is holding the line on spending? I know that in North Carolina the balanced budget is sacrosanct. Pat McCrory should not be mistaken for an empire builder. But he will distinguish himself for his innate sense of responsibility and (gasp) fiscal restraint.


Rob continues: "McCrory’s budget offered no sweeping vision of what he wants his governorship to be about. If anything it seems to be a green-eyeshades budget that puts an emphasis on fixing things or making things run more smoothly – it put more than $1 billion in funds designed to repair buildings or update computers and telecommunications equipment, or build up reserves for future emergencies."

Verne: What the hell? Now you're really making me mad! Of course the "green-eyeshades" dig is insulting enough, but to belittle the "emphasis on fixing things or making things run more smoothly" cuts to the quick. It's childish. 

One of the main problems in America and in the states and communities is building exciting monuments to politicians -- gargantuan buildings, soaring bridges, sports palaces -- anything you can put a plaque on saying who spent your money to put up this thing and why they were wonderful.

That ain't all bad. But all over the State, and across the nation, we have neglected infrastructure -- disintegrating streets, highways, bridges, electrical systems, and other necessities that keep us safe, secure and functioning. As a result, these things don't get fixed. No one wants to spend money to keep up something that has lost its luster. How you gonna create excitement by overhauling a municipal sewer system?

"This may be sound management," the N&O blogger ventures, "but it is not the stuff of which legacies are made."

Verne: Legacy? Is that what all this is about? I know that politicians are egotists, but if "building a legacy" breaks the bank, or comes close, then it's clear that this is not why we elect leaders. It's always needlessly expensive, in many cases barely functional.

I don't think I have heard any presidents talk of "my legacy" more than Obama and Clinton. JFK and LBJ, further back in time, had the same affliction.They happen to be showboats with inflated opinions of themselves. They reside in a rarefied atmosphere where they feel they deserve lavish praise and recognition, and, by dang, they are going to buy it. Or we are. Republicans are generally more reserved. George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Dwight D. Eisenhower. And Ronald Reagan? In a class all by himself.

But I seem to be taking a ramp off the Interstate. My point in all of this is to support Pat McCrory, who does have imagination, drive, energy, vision, and great leadership qualities. And to shine the spotlight on his character and capabilities.

He is a businessman. This is what attracted many of us to his candidacy. And I say it's about time that we have a businessman as our Governor. Of late, we've had a succession of skilled politicians, self-promoters, with an occasional embarrassing side trip into malfeasance and total incompetency. This has cost us and tarnished our reputation.

Governor Pat McCrory will do us right. He won't blow his budget on frills. He won't abuse his privileges. He won't misbehave. He will tend to business. He won't fail.

I know you like your Democrats, Rob Christensen. But after the "administrations" of Easley and Purdue, you're going to find Pat McCrory an exceptional governor, a breath of fresh air, and a leader who will accomplish great things -- always within his means. Yep, Rob -- you're gonna love this guy.

By the way, here's just a little bullet point that showed up in an editorial in the N&O on Thursday:
"This budget may be dull, but it’s politically shrewd."

That's what I'm talking about, Rob!

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/21/2769437/mccrorys-budget-sets-up-a-debate.html#storylink=cpy

By Rob Christensen — rchristensen@newsobserver.com

Gov. Pat McCrory proposed a hold-the-line budget on Wednesday that offered key clues about his still-fledgling governorship.

Budgets by and large are political documents, reflecting the goals and priorities of the governor.
A governor’s first budget is particularly important because the governor is at the height of his or her power to push an agenda through the legislature. McCrory will never has as much leverage as he has today. So what did he do with his leverage?


Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at N.C. State University, said the McCrory budget contrasts with the more ideological proposals coming out of the Republican legislature.
“We have the governor taking a more moderate, pragmatic approach, more interested in issues of management and administration,” Taylor said. “The legislature is taking the bolder, more pre-emptive and ideological position on issues.”

Claude Pope announces run for Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party

MESSAGE FROM CLAUDE E. POPE, JR.

March 21, 2013

I’m running for Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party because I want to build on the successes
we’ve had in the past two election cycles and establish the Republican Party as the dominant political organization in our state for the foreseeable future.

Staying on top is even tougher than getting to the top, in my opinion, but I believe my combination of business and political experience has prepared me to lead the Republican Party to a successful future in North Carolina – and that will be good news for the state and its people.

Our great new Governor, Pat McCrory, and our Republican majority in the legislature are going to make the reforms and changes North Carolina needs to get its economy moving again, put an end to the constant tax increases and pervasive corruption that marked the recent Democrat years, and give all North Carolinians a government that works efficiently and treats them like they were valued customers.

But the Democrats aren’t going to roll over and play dead.  You’ve probably read that they have a plan to “cripple” and “eviscerate” Republican leaders and “weaken their ability to govern.”  They promise to use private investigators and other shady tactics to dig up dirt on Republicans.

To fight that kind of disgusting negativism, our party is going to have to be strong, and I’m ready for the challenge.

I’ll work to strengthen local party organizations, to help each of them to “own their sandbox” and win local elections that will add depth to our Republican governing team.  I’ll provide mechanisms to support our statewide leaders against the underhanded tactics the Democrats have already announced as their battle plan.  I’ll ramp up our fundraising and volunteer efforts – as Wake County Chairman, I set records in both areas.

I’ll reach out to the various constituencies and conservative-minded organizations so we can all work together to build the North Carolina you and I want.  And I’ll use my business experience to make sure the whole thing is managed in an effective, efficient way.

That’s my pledge to you, and the basis on which I’m asking for your support at the Republican State Convention in Charlotte June 7 – 9.

I look forward to seeing you there, and to working together in the coming months and years on behalf of the North Carolina Republican Party.
Thank you.

Claude E. Pope, Jr.

P.S. Please visit my website at ElectClaudePope.com for regular updates.

GOP must remain the party of mainstream Reagan conservatism

 

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / March 19, 2013




 By Benjamin P. Chatham

I belong to the school that believes the Republican Party must remain the party of mainstream Reagan conservatism rather than try to become a diluted version of the Democratic Party. 

This does not mean Republicans can't come up with creative policy solutions when advisable, but it does mean that conservatism is based on timeless principles that require no major revisions. 

Conservatives are champions of freedom, the rule of law and enforcement of the social compact between government and the people enshrined in the Constitution, which imposes limitations on government in order to maximize our liberties. 

If we reject these ideas, then we have turned our backs on what America means and what has made America unique. What's the point of winning elections if the price is American exceptionalism?

I refuse to acquiesce to the cowardly notion that conservatives are intolerant or mean-spirited because they oppose discriminant treatment for groups and classes of people, because they support the rule of law, because they oppose a runaway entitlement state and because they adhere to traditional values, including the protection of innocent life.

But my personal preferences as to the future of the conservative movement and the GOP aren't really the point. The point is that no matter what I prefer, the hard truth is that the movement inside the Republican Party to abandon social conservatism is nothing short of a political death wish. Denying it will not alter the reality.

The five minute NRA speech that would change the gun control debate forever

 

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / March 18, 2013

Published March 14, 2013

FoxNews.com

Editor's note: Author Scott Pinsker is a marketing and publicity expert who writes occasionally for Fox News Opinion. This is his vision of a speech he would like to see delivered by leaders at the National Rifle Association. It has not been delivered by the NRA.

Greetings. My name is Wayne LaPierre, and I’m the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. After the national tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it was my hope that Red America and Blue America would finally come together and try to solve a serious problem, because protecting our children from violent madmen isn’t a conservative position or a liberal position; it’s a common-sense position.
Sadly, instead of offering new solutions, the same anti-gun zealots who’ve always hated the Second Amendment have politicized the deaths of kindergartners, adopting the Rahm Emanuel tactic of “Never letting a good crisis go to waste.” Anti-gun newspapers have even published the names and private addresses of law-abiding gun-owners – something they would NEVER do to sex offenders, drug addicts, wife-beaters, AIDS victims, welfare recipients or women who’ve had an abortion – and rightly so.

The Sandy Hook tragedy, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora “Batman” shooting, the Tucson shooting – all of the killers were mentally unstable young men who were prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs.

The NRA tried to help: Since we protect our president, vice president, governors, senators, judges, banks, hospitals, office buildings and jewelry stores with armed guards, why does it make sense to protect our schoolchildren with a small sign that says, “This Is a Gun Free Zone” – and then hope that someone with a gun can get there quickly if there’s an emergency? Why do we have armed guards at middle school and high school football games – but not at the actual middle schools or high schools?
But this still doesn’t do enough to protect our children. The time for partisanship is over; now is the time for action. And that’s why the NRA is requesting the assistance of the ACLU.
The Sandy Hook tragedy, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora “Batman” shooting, the Tucson shooting – all of the killers had something in common: They were all mentally unstable young men who were prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs.
These killers didn’t purchase their guns illegally, or watch Fox News, or circumvent background checks by attending gun shows. They didn’t have prior convictions or troubling police records. That’s not the common denominator. The common denominator is that these young men were sick – and everyone knew it.
The ACLU has done more than any other organization to protect the legal rights of mentally sick people.
This is a fact.
Because of the ACLU, mentally sick people can refuse medical treatment or psychiatric care, even when their mental condition has left them homeless and penniless. Even in situations like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old Sandy Hook killer, whose own mother, according to reports, was unable to mandate medical treatment for her son.
The NRA doesn’t hate the mentally ill. They deserve our compassion and our help. But sick young men have spilled far too much innocent blood. This simply cannot continue.
The NRA is hereby inviting the ACLU to join us on a study to find common-sense solutions that will prevent violent madmen from harming our children. And then together, it’s our hope that the NRA and the ACLU will offer these solutions directly to President Obama.
This won’t be easy. It’s anathema to the NRA to deny any law-abiding American the right to bear arms, just as it’s anathema to the ACLU to deny any American the same civil liberties of his neighbors. But despite our personal biases, there must be a solution that’s better than the status quo!
An inspirational politician once declared that there isn’t a Red America and a Blue America, or a black America and a white America – there’s the United States of America. As Americans, let’s come together, rise above the rhetoric, and actually do something that protects our children.
Thank you.
Scott Pinsker is a marketing and publicity expert who specializes in brand-development for celebrities, entertainment properties and corporate conglomerates.  He lives in Tampa Bay, Florida.

McIntyre's problem: 'When he gets up there in Washington, he votes for the far left.'

 
LIBERAL RECORD COSTS MIKE ANOTHER KEY ALLY

By Verne Strickland

March 16, 2013 (First published Sept. 9, 2010)

For years, Doug and Peggy Murray, who are Republicans, voted for Mike McIntyre, a Democrat.

The ties between the two families were more personal than political in the early going.

The Robeson County community of Lumberton was where McIntyre was born and raised, and where he returned to practice law after winning his degree from Wake Forest University. He was a Morehead Scholar and a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

Lumberton was where Doug and Peggy became acquainted with Mike and his family after Doug’s move to Robeson in 1972. Doug, also an attorney, had established his own practice there as a sole practitioner.

The Murrays and McIntyres attended the same Presbyterian Church in Lumberton. Both Doug and Mike were officers in the church.

When Mike decided to run for Congress, Doug recalls being contacted by Mike, who told Doug he was going to make his announcement.

“He asked if I would join him for that occasion, and I was pleased to do that, by virtue of our long and close relationship. Both Peggy and I supported him from that day with contributions, and attending various of his political gatherings. We supported him through all seven of his races," Doug observed.

The Murrays, a bright, vibrant couple, now make their home in the Magnolia Greens community in Leland, where they moved in 2005.

Doug is retired. Peggy is a spirited wife and soul mate. They have uncompromising beliefs, and this has compelled them to make decisions they knew would come at considerable personal cost.

“About two years ago,” Doug recounted, “it was obvious that liberal and progressive politicians, most of whom were Democrats, were taking over the leadership of the country. Peggy and I were quite dismayed about that. Even though we were quietly participating in the political process, we decided we needed to get more active, not only for our own benefit, but as well for the benefit of generations to come. The country was heading toward what we saw as socialism, if not something more sinister, and neither of us could support that.”

While Doug and Peggy were mulling this over, their attention became riveted by the overblown media coverage of murder charges lodged against a young Marine officer at Camp Lejeune in nearby Jacksonville, NC.

The Murrays were impressed by the sincerity of the young Marine, and they followed the military proceedings on television and in the newspapers.

“We were overjoyed when there was a failure to issue charges arising out of the Article 32 hearing,” said Doug. “They had their day to prove that he should be tried, and failed to do so. One young man who was the only one attempting to substantiate a bogus story about what happened in the deaths of these Iraqis was not believed. Ilario was exonerated.”

A couple of years passed, and the Murrays didn’t hear anything more about Ilario Pantano until he announced a run for Congress in 2009.

“Because we knew about him,” Doug continued, “we started to listen to what he was saying. He was very personable, articulate, and obviously a true patriot. Because of my own military background, I was doubly impressed with Ilario."

Doug served four years of active duty in the Navy as a line officer, followed by attendance at Wake Forest Law School, after which his Reserve designation was changed to JAG. He remained in the Reserves for another 16 years, retiring after 20 years with the rank of Commander.

Other events were moving simultaneously. In 2008, Doug and Peggy had attended a local GOP executive committee precinct meeting in Belville.

“Frank Iler, then chairman of the Brunswick County Republican Party, was presiding. I think Peggy volunteered me to be chairman of the Belville precinct. That’s how I went onto the executive committee of the Brunswick GOP. The more meetings I attended, the more I saw that there were others who felt as deeply and sincerely as we about the direction our country was going. Our enthusiasm was going into full gear,” Doug said.

The Murrays met Pantano for the first time at a meeting of the Brunswick County Republican executive committee. The charismatic young candidate made a deep and lasting impression.

“When you have the opportunity to talk with him, regardless of how many people are around him, he is attentive to you alone, no matter what is going on around you. He is a very engaging individual,” Doug recalls.

In the hearts and minds of Doug and Peggy Murray, an idea – a calling – was emerging, and they both knew it.

Here was Doug’s description of the phenomenon: “Ilario’s military background was attractive to me, and his service as an enlisted man, then as an officer --nobody can doubt his allegiance to his country, his sincerity and his belief that we all have a duty to preserve our independence.”

Peggy, similarly impressed, talked about how her own long-held loyalties in favor of Congressman McIntyre were beginning to falter.

“Mike never had any real competition until he was challenged by Ilario Pantano. For a long time we had never really thought to check on McIntyre’s record. But when we did, we were pretty surprised. He says he’s a conservative but that’s not what his record shows. Someone in Brunswick County said when Mike is talking to us here, he acts like a good old boy. Just one of us. But when he gets up there in Washington he votes for the far left. That offends me,” she asserted.

They talked – Doug and Peggy – long bouts of soul-searching, attempting to resolve the tug between uncertainty and a leap into unknown political waters, with treasured personal relationships surely hanging in the balance.

“We had a decision to make,” Doug commented. “How much support do we feel comfortable giving to Ilario insofar as the upcoming election is concerned? In the primary, there was no problem. We are Republicans, and we knew Ilario by far to be the better choice there. But in the general election, where do we come down? We had to look at our good Lumberton friends, and say this is the man we are for, and we are supporting Ilario all the way. Could we do that?”

The words of Doug’s late father came to him, and it was like a key had turned in a lock.

“He used to say to me, ‘Doug, if you’re in for a penny, get in for a pound.’ So we gave it even more consideration, and finally agreed we would do all we could to get Ilario elected.”

One of the first occasions which would signal the Murrays’ change in loyalties would be a “meet and greet” for candidate Pantano at their attractive and inviting home across from the Magnolia Greens golfing links.

Did Mike McIntyre get wind of the upcoming event in late June when he called Doug to ask a favor? Doug wonders.

The congressman contacted Doug approximately two weeks before the meet and greet to discuss strategy issues in North Brunswick.

Doug told Mike at that time that he and Peggy would be supporting Ilario Pantano, although somewhat reluctantly.

“Mike, though gracious, reiterated that he was a moderate and at times conservative, as his record would indicate, and that he looked after his folks at home,” Doug continued.

“He said he needed advice and counsel about how to proceed with gaining some support from people in the Leland area, whom we know well since we live there.

“That’s the way we left it, and there has been no further contact between us since then.”

US scraps final phase of European missile shield. Hagel's Defense Department bows to Russian complaints. What the crap, Chuck?

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / March 16, 2013

Interceptors had been strongly opposed by Russians. Deal could lead to more talks on nuclear arms reducations. U.S. always loses in those 'deals'.

Chuck Hagel: "The American people should be assured our interceptors are effective"

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• US to boost Alaska missile defence
• Nato's missile shield 'up and running'
• Russia tests secret new missile

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts.

Upgraded interceptors were to have been deployed in Poland to counter medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and potential threats from the Middle East.
Mr Hagel said the threat had "matured" and that the US commitment to Nato missile defence remained "ironclad".
The interceptors had been strongly opposed by the Russian government.
It complained that they would be able to stop Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and undermine its nuclear deterrent.
The US has always insisted that the missile shield was intended to protect against attacks by Iran and North Korea.
Analysts said Friday's announcement could open the door to another round of talks between the US and Russia on nuclear arms reductions.
'Shifting resources' The dropping of the fourth and final phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) for missile defence was announced quietly at a news conference, reports the BBC's Matt Wells in Washington.
Almost as an aside, Mr Hagel confirmed that in order to fund 14 new Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in Alaska by 2017 to guard against increased threats from North Korea, the SM-3 IIB programme - a land-based standard missile - would be "restructured", our correspondent adds.
"The purpose was to add to the protection of the US homeland already provided by our current GBIs against missile threats from the Middle East," Mr Hagel said.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Let me emphasise the strong and continued commitment of the United States to Nato missile defence”

Chuck Hagel US Defence Secretary

 

"The timeline for deploying this programme had been delayed to at least 2022 due to cuts in Congressional funding. Meanwhile, the threat matures.

"By shifting resources from this lagging programme to fund the additional GBIs as well as advanced kill vehicle technology that will improve the performance of the GBI and other versions of the SM-3 interceptor, we will be able to add protection against missiles from Iran sooner while also providing additional protection against the North Korean threat."
Mr Hagel promised that North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) allies in Europe would see no difference to their level of protection as a result, with the first three phases of the EPAA providing coverage of all of their territory as planned by 2018.
"Let me emphasise the strong and continued commitment of the United States to Nato missile defence. That commitment remains ironclad."
Mr Hagel made no reference to Russia's objections. Officials in Moscow had hinted that they would not consider further nuclear arms cuts if the SM-3 interceptors were deployed.
Our correspondent says defence spending is being squeezed in the US, and the Pentagon believes tough decisions have to be made about where the main threat lies.

"Cancelling phase 4 opens the door to another round of US-Russian nuclear arms reductions,'' Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, told the Associated Press. "We give up nothing since phase 4 was not panning out anyway. This is a win-win for the United States."
The decision was, however, criticised by Republicans in the Congress.
"President Obama's reverse course decision will cost the American taxpayer more money and upset our allies," said Representative Mike Rogers, who chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees ballistic missile defence.