This Week’s Feature
In Senate Testimony, AUL President Calls for Kagan Investigation

AUL President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest last week made headlines as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that not only should they reject Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, but they should also probe discrepancies between her written record and her committee testimony.
Dr. Yoest told the packed hearing room, “Based on our research, we believe that Ms. Kagan will be an agenda-driven justice on the Court, and that she will oppose even the most widely-accepted protections for unborn human life.”
Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) questioned Dr. Yoest closely about their concerns in light of the evidence she presented from AUL’s legal team that the nominee, who has a long history of abortion advocacy, had attempted to manipulate and politicize the medical opinions issued during the partial-birth abortion debate and on other issues of abortion-related law.

On The Docket
Sister Organization, AUL Action, asks Americans to Echo call for

Investigation

The partial-birth abortion scandal that is brewing around the Kagan nomination was the subject of an Action Alert sent out last week to grassroots activists around the country by AUL’s sister organization, AUL Action. The revelation that Elena Kagan, while serving in the Clinton White House, appeared willing to lobby not one, but two major medical organizations to change their positions on partial-birth abortion has caused deep concern here in Washington and around the country.

AUL Experts’ Commentary Featured on National Review Online & Human Events

Throughout the Kagan hearings, Dr. Yoest and other AUL experts kept pro-lifers abreast of the latest developments with their featured commentary on National Review Online’s Bench Memos and the Human Events blog.

In the News: AUL Warns that New Blood Test Would Lead to More Abortions

Fox News featured AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith last week in its story about an inexpensive medical test being prepared for the market, which would use a blood sample from a pregnant woman to detect whether her unborn child had Down Syndrome or other abnormalities. Smith told the network’s reporter, “If [the test] might more conclusively prevent false positives, it might have some benefit, but it will also likely lead to more abortions of children with disabilities.”

Quote:

One of Barack Hussein Obama’s first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.The president was “too tired” to grant the leader of America’s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.

Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as “rudeness personified.” There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. “The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House,” said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes.  Mr. Obama’s “churlishness is unforgivable,” Mr. Hughes said.

The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina’s specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British — with strong support from President Ronald Reagan — expelled them.

“It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history,” wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. “Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?” One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

“I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office,” wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. “A lot of hemming and hawing ensued.” One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, “Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama.”

Mr. Obama certainly doesn’t care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he’s been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama’s abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won’t support serious sanctions on Iran. Syria’s support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at “engagement” by deepening its ties to North Korea.

And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama’s relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community.
They soon will.

–London Daily Telegraph editor — Alex Singleton,

Turning the Tide: http://www.intouch.org/broadcast/this-week-on-tv – Then click on video
]]> http://smartguyz.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/from-the-london-daily-telegraph-editor-on-foreign-relations/feed/ 3 adlaw15 american flag british flag http://smartguyz.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/immigration-to-america-through-the-years-the-last-two-pictures-are-immigration-during-the-obama-regime/ http://smartguyz.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/immigration-to-america-through-the-years-the-last-two-pictures-are-immigration-during-the-obama-regime/#comments Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:15:39 +0000 adlaw15 http://smartguyz.wordpress.com/?p=1062 ]]> Quick history lesson…

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900, when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented.

Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good times and in bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households, and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved goodbye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.  Nothing was handed to them.   No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them.  All they had were the skills and craftsmanship that they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out.  My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan.  None of these first generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French American, the German American or the Irish American.  The people of France saw only Americans.  And, we carried one flag that represented one country.  Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were.  It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American.  They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges.  Only, they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules:  one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.  I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about.  I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900′s,  deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

KEEP THIS MESSAGE  MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL, THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET.

LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!

>
> Let’s sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!
>

Guess what … Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language.  They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only.  If you want to drive in Oklahoma, you must read and write English.  Really simple.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what … who cares … Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

GIBBS LAW FIRM, P.A.

Attorneys and Counselors at Law

Thank you for contacting the Christian Law Association and our law firm regarding an article you wrote about Jesus for your monthly community newsletter.  You indicated that when another person in the community complained to the editor, and threatened to contact advertisers or file a lawsuit if your article were printed, the editor decided that he would not print your article.  As we discussed on the phone, one of the most important federal constitutional freedoms we have in America is the freedom of the press.  The editor of the newsletter has the freedom to print any article he wishes or to decline any article he does not like for any reason.  He may not like the topic or he may not like the writing style, but the choice is the editor’s choice to make.  No newspaper reader has the right to tell any newspaper editor what he may or may not print.  This is basic Level I Constitutional law.  Similarly, as the author of the article in question you have no more right to demand that the article be printed than the other reader has to demand that the article not be printed.  No newspaper editor in America may be told by any reader or author what editorial decisions he may make with regard to his own newspaper (other than a publisher who could fire the editor for making editorial decisions the publisher disagreed with).  Since you mentioned that the Editor is both the editor and the owner of this particular newspaper, there is no one who can tell him what to print or not print.

As we also discussed, a newspaper reader who does not like something that is printed has a few options.  The reader may cancel his subscription to the paper, he can write a nasty Letter to the Editor and complain, or he can boycott the advertisers.  Of course anyone in America can sue anyone else if he can afford a lawyer, but no court in this country would issue a legal ruling negating the First Amendment Freedom of the Press.  So the decision of whether or not to print your article rests entirely with the Editor.  I am amazed that any American citizen would want to diminish the freedoms we have in this nation merely because of a bigoted view of another religion.  In America, we are free to express our own religious viewpoints, including in newspapers, and we are also free to attempt to convince others that our viewpoint is correct and that others should believe what we believe.  The Editor was correct to invite the complaining reader to write his own article about why his religion is best.  America is not Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern country where proselytizing or conversion are against the law.  Many newspapers used to have regular religion columns, usually on Saturdays, some written by pastors.  Some newspapers still continue this custom. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that.

The readers do have some power, however.  They can cancel their subscriptions if they do not like what is being printed.  This is a numbers game.  Would more people cancel their subscriptions if your article were printed or if it were not printed?  That is something the editor could take into account if he cares about revenue and income.

In the same way, boycotting advertisers is also a numbers game.  Would more people boycott the advertisers if your article were printed or if it were not printed?  That is an economic decision for the advertisers to make.  But none of these decisions are legal decisions.  No one should take a legal threat seriously in this type of circumstance. The editor is protected by Freedom of the Press whatever decision he makes.  And the readers will either live with it or not.  You have the right to start your own newspaper if you like and compete with and print as many religion articles as you like.  The community would decide with their wallets which newspaper they prefer.  This would be an economic threat, not a legal threat.

Please feel free to share this email with the editor, the complaining reader and other interested members of your community.  If the editor were sued for publishing a Christian article, Christian Law Association would be happy to defend him for free.  It would be a quick and easy case to win.  We might even request that the judge fine the plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Barbara J. Weller
Admitted in Florida

Gibbs Law Firm, P.A.
5666 Seminole Blvd., Suite 2
Seminole, FL 33772
(727) 399-8300
Fax (727) 398-3907

… You’re gonna love this… I still haven’t stopped laughing!

For those of you who have never traveled to the west, or southwest, “cattle guards” are horizontal steel rails placed at fence openings, in dug-out places in the roads adjacent to highways, (sometimes across highways), to prevent cattle from crossing over that area. For some reason, the cattle will not step on the “guards,” probably because they fear getting their feet caught between the rails.

A few months ago, President Obama received and was reading a report that there were over 100,000  “cattle guards” in Colorado.  Colorado ranchers had protested his proposed changes in grazing policies, so he ordered the Secretary of the Interior to fire half of the “cattle guards” immediately.

Before the Secretary of the Interior could respond and presumably try to straighten him out, Vice-President, Joe Biden, intervened with a request that before any “cattle guards” were fired, they be given six months of retraining.

-Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776.

Everyone concentrates on the problems we’re having in this country lately: illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, and alligators attacking people in Florida. Not me. I concentrate on solutions for the problems. It’s a win-win situation.

• Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.

• Send the dirt to New Orleans to raise the level of the levies.

• Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.

Any other problems you would like for me to solve today? Yes!Think about these:

1. Cows
2. The Constitution
3. The Ten Commandments

C O W S

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington?  And, they tracked her calves to their stalls.  But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our county?  Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

T H E  C O N S T I T U T I O N

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq …. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using it anymore.

T H E  TEN
C O M M A N D M E N T S

The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this:
You cannot post ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal,’ ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,’ and
‘Thou Shall Not Lie’ in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians.  It creates a hostile work environment.