The KS primary election is in less than 3 weeks.

The most watched and important race is for Johnson Co. District Attorney Republican nominee: Phill Kline vs. the establishment opponent who will drop the only criminal case in the U.S. against Planned Parenthood.

As many of you have followed, Kline filed 107 charges against Comprehensive Health of PP of KS and Mid-MO in October 2007.

Since then, PP has wielded all its influence in a state run under pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to delay the evidence from ever getting before a jury. PP's plan: run out the clock on Kline's term in office. Kline has courageously fought against overwhelming odds to enforce the law against this $1 billion abortion cartel.

Now, Kline needs the help of the nationwide pro-life community. There is no one else but us. The only way Kline can get his message of truth out is to go around the Kansas City Star with a final days, aggressive, multi-faceted ad campaign. (Recall KCS has pounded Kline since the day he took office, re-earning the "Maggie Award" PP gave it in 2006 for helping unseat Kline in the Attorney General's race.)...

Phill needs to raise $300,000 in a week. To reach that goal, StandwithPhill.com has launched a "$50 for Phill" campaign. 6,000 people or families must contribute. Please be one. View this inspiring video of Kline's long battle to bring PP to justice and then participate in the "$50 for Phill" campaign to help him get his word out around the liberal media. If Kline doesn't win on August 5, the 5 year battle to get the only criminal case against PP will be lost forever.

There are encouraging signs. On July 5, Kline won a straw poll of 130 Republican leaders by a landslide in Olathe County - where the PP abortion mill is located. His competitor's campaign manager was heard to mutter, "Sh**!" after Phill gave this unity speech before the group.

A pro-life group called Victim's Voice Foundation, Inc. has also been running powerful radio ads to show the strong prosecutor Phill Kline is and expose what the KCS will not tell the public. Whenever Kline's office successfully prosecutes a case, for instance, the KCS does not state his name, only citing "the prosecutor's office." These ads go around KCS to the public.

Listen to the ad outting the KCS for censoring Kline's accomplishments here. Hear the ad about Kline's prosecution of the infamous Kaufman House here.

Please sacrificially contribute to Kline's race today at StandwithPhil.com.

And please forward this message to your pro-life lists.

I received the following email this afternoon from Eileen Smith, mother of Laura Smith, who died at the hand of MA abortionist Rapin Osathanondh on September 13, 2007:

It is with great joy that I announce an indictment has been handed down by the Barnstable County District Atty's Office Today for "involuntary manslaughter" on the dr. that killed Laura. Nothing can ever bring Laura back to us but today's actions by the DA brings comfort in knowing that justice will prevail....

Many of you do not even know the great lengths this man went to, to cover up his actions and the lies he has told. I thank God in particular for the one employee who came forward and exposed him just by telling the truth. I am eternally grateful to her.

For detailed background on this story read my posts here and here.

Operation Rescue spoke further with Eileen today and reported this:

A Barnstable County Grand Jury issued an indictment today against abortionist Rapin Osathanondh for Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of 22-year old Laura Hope Smith. According to Smith's mother, Eileen, efforts to cover up details of her daughter's death came to light during the grand jury investigation.

Mrs. Smith told OR that a Sheriff's Deputy in another county had provided Osathanondh and his abortion clinic staff with CPR training, then backdated the session to a date prior to Laura's death, with the full knowledge that someone had recently died at the clinic. Osathanondh and his staff had been uncertified in CPR until that time....

Mrs. Smith has filed a complaint in Bristol County against the deputy.

Laura Smith had sought an abortion from Osathanondh on September 13, 2007, at his office, Women's Health Center, in the Cape Cod town of Hyannis. Smith was placed under full anesthesia when only Osathanondh and a non-medical receptionist were present. When Smith suddenly stopped breathing, the receptionist phoned 911, but it was too late. Smith died later that day.

Five months later, in response to a complaint filed by Eileen Smith, Osathanondh relinquished his medical license to the MA Board of Registration in Medicine in the wake of pending disciplinary action and a criminal investigation. Osathanondh's two abortion offices were closed....

Read a Cape Cod Times article here.

CNN interviewed Dr. Alveda King, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, niece, today as one African-American voter who does not support Barack Obama due to his pro-abortion position.

Alveda is a formidable black spokesperson on the pro-life issue, and I'm glad this angle got CNN coverage. Alveda's interview comes 50 seconds in:

Paul Weyrich is considered the founder of the modern conservative movement. In a July 11 National Ledger op ed he wrote (entire piece reposted on page 2):

... The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers....

We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean....

[HT: reader John H.; photo courtesy of the National Ledger]

National Ledger
History and the Judiciary
By Paul M. Weyrich
Jul 11, 2008

I am neither an attorney nor an expert in Constitutional law. Others have been good enough to say I am a good strategist. If so, then I would like to share my perspective of the current state of the judiciary. I have listened as a debate is occurring over the proper powers of the courts and the tendency of some Americans to cede to the advocates of unrestrained judicial power victories to which they are not entitled.

I am occasionally referred to as a "founder of the modern conservative movement." Such an honor places upon me and others to whom such a description applies a special duty to warn our fellow citizens. Americans today are witnesses to the realization of the great fear of our Founding Fathers: the passing away of government "of the people, by the people, for the people," as President Abraham Lincoln stated, in the United States of America. With respect to the courts, we need a revival of the rule of law based upon the constitutional principles laid down by those who founded this nation.

Our forefathers gave their lives to liberate us from the rule of a British Parliament unelected by the American colonists:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.... (Emphasis added.)

The grand formalities of American election rituals hide a glaring fact: Americans can no longer claim that we are our own rulers in every circumstance in which we are empowered to be. Regardless of our votes, the defining judgments in our collective and personal destinies often are made by persons whom the American people have not elected to rule.

We gave judges their robes and gavels so that they might resolve specific disputes between specific plaintiffs and defendants. We never gave them authority to issue commands to our elected lawmakers, forcing us down roads which we have not chosen to travel. Judges have no constitutional authority to make laws or to amend our national and state constitutions. They have no authority to redefine words and concepts in our laws to mean what they and their ideological partisans wish for them to mean.

To Americans of previous generations this was obvious and fundamental. But for many in America today, this is meaningless, a mere technicality: judges are supreme because, well, because they just are.

When several judges opined that there ought to be no more prayer in American schools, lawyers, politicians and journalists told us that after three centuries of prayer in our schools, judges had suddenly "outlawed" it. Court opinions interpreting law and social custom magically became the law itself.

After three centuries of Americans exercising their right to control their communities as citizens and to keep pornography out of public view, several judges opined that the Founding Fathers had given pornographers a right to pollute us and our children, a right that does not exist in the United States Constitution. They put us on a course that has almost obliterated the ideal of fidelity of body, mind, imagination and the heart, upon which marriage, family and child-rearing are built.

Nevertheless, lawyers, journalists and politicians announced that this opinion was to be the new law though it had no basis in the Constitution or in any law authorized by the American people via their chosen lawmakers.

Likewise, judges - acting on behalf of a tiny, anti-constitutional, self-styled cultural "elite" dedicated to turning America into an ideological utopia - opined that the American people may neither protect children from violent murder in their mother's womb, nor outlaw sodomy, nor restrict their civic blessing upon marriage to nature's definition of it, nor ensure that parentless children are placed with parents as nature defines them: one father and one mother.

Nor should I forget to mention judicial disregard for centuries of customary, legal and constitutional protection of private property in order to provide legal sanction for powerful, corrupt politicians lusting after other men's land or buildings. "Take what you please," they said in essence. And this was now the law. One hand washes the other.

Many of us received in shock and sadness the Goodridge v. the Department of Public Health of Massachusetts opinion on homosexual marriage. Why do self-styled "conservatives," lawyers, politician and pundits among them, spread the assertion that judges have powers that the American people have never given them?

The truth is that the ruthlessly enforced illusion of judicial supremacy did not merely empower judges and disenfranchise the American people. It made journalists, lawyers and clever politicians more influential culturally. Most, after all, are of the same ideological bent as many judges. And those who were not, the "conservatives," played within the new rules: judges' opinions are the law in the United States of America.

If Americans paid attention, understood what is at stake and agreed upon the solution, their long-term strategy would require:

* an string of primary victories by candidates who fully grasp the fact that judges have no authority to change our laws and who aggressively will oppose all claims to the contrary;

* an unbroken series of triumphs by such constitutionalist candidates in general elections, year after year;

* an unbroken series of nominations of judges who will interpret the law and will reject the noxious and absurd myth that previous court opinions are "the law of the land"; (Presidents Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush gave us activists such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter!);

* an unbroken series of Senate confirmations of originalist judges;

* unwavering constitutionalism by originalist judges in their years on the bench, withstanding daily assault by infuriated cultural "elites" who grew accustomed to using legally void and impotent court opinions as bulldozers to deceive and enslave Americans via a-moral, anti-constitutional and increasingly tyrannical judicial delusions.

Not a single signer of the Constitution (or of the Declaration of Independence) would have taken seriously the purportedly "conservative" view today that to restrain judges we need to replace them through attrition over decades. That view, in my opinion, guarantees a victory of the far left because it implies that the judicial branch is the final authority on the law.

In his book and British Broadcasting Corporation series Civilization, historian Sir Kenneth Clarke noted that after the dissolution of the Roman Empire, scattered pockets of normalcy continued for a surprisingly long time. How will we know, living in such "pockets of normalcy," when our republic has collapsed? Has it already? Are we prisoners who still think themselves free?

For the sake of this republic I urge my friends, fellow leaders and Americans emphatically to repudiate the devastating myth that judges have the power to make and redefine our laws. We should do so rapidly and forcefully before our republic is replaced by the irresistible tyranny of men and women who believe that nihilist elites should make the rules and pass them to judges for formal announcement when the time is ripe for the latest step into the post-rule of law, post-moral abyss. Otherwise our "conservatism" will continue to be merely the rearguard for subtle left-wing revolution.

The tragedy of how we have reached this point: in our desire for social acceptance and respectability among the anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-Christian, anti-family nihilist left, "conservative" elites have abandoned the core principles of our Constitution. We have flouted the warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Alexander Hamilton was perhaps the strongest advocate of "judicial review" - the right of judges to opine on our Constitution. But an opinion on the meaning of the Constitution is merely an advisory opinion to the legislative and executive branches of government. Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, intentionally have been given no means of enforcing their opinions, noting that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to obey false or dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

...The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. ... [T]he judiciary...has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will....

Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land:

...If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

In the last century cultural elites created an illusion of judicial power that would be unrecognizable to earlier Americans, lawyers and laymen. After the American Revolution, the framers of the Constitution rejected any judicial authority over the other branches of government.

I fear the conservative elites are putting the final nail in our coffin. I know these men. They mean well. They are not pursuing their view out of malice. They believe what they are doing is right. Nor do I associate myself with some of their critics who often are accusatory, judgmental and angry. I look at results, and it seems to me that proponents of the status quo are allowing the legal profession and the courts to impose moral and civil codes which cannot pass federal and state legislatures. They foolishly are handing absolute power to anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-family ideologues.

This is where the trajectory of the post-constitutional pragmatism undergirding the "conservative revolution" has taken us. The story is not yet complete, but if we continue on this trajectory we may reach the point of tyranny and persecution. History reveals this to be true.

Many of those with whom I have worked for years unwittingly are aiding the far left in the destruction of America. It is time for our presidents, governors, legislatures and prominent citizens to call the bluff of impotent judges as Jefferson did and to ask them, as President Andrew Jackson did, how they will enforce their impotent opinions. The myth of judicial supremacy cannot justify governors violating state and federal constitutions, their oaths of office and the sovereignty of the American people. Look at the way so-called gay marriage has been imposed by judicial fiat, running ruthlessly over elected legislatures and the will of the people.

The Massachusetts Constitution contains the quintessential statement of the American form of government: "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature...." (Part the First, Article XX.) "[T]he people...are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (Part the First, Article X.) "The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (Part the First, Article XXX.) "All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved...shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature...." (Part the Second, Article VI.)

Americans must debunk the Orwellian lie that has obliterated self-government in the United States and acknowledge Lincoln's words at Gettysburg in 1863:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.... It is for us the living...to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

The New York Times published an article yesterday, "Abortion proposal sets condition on aid," which I thought sounded promising. Loved the definition of abortion!

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control....

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion....

The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."...

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

I called a source at the Department of Health & Human Services, which wrote this rule (currently in the preliminary stages), to fill in details.

As the article stated, this was only distributed throughout DHHS Monday for comment and leaked to become the topic of a NYT story by Tuesday by someone(s) clearly "doing everything they can to kill it," said my source.

This rule would provide sweeping conscience protection to medical workers, hospitals, and even pharmacies that do not want to participate in abortion or distribute the morning after pill. Indeed, some state governments have been enacting laws or executive orders mandating that hospitals and pharmacies prescribe the MAP.

Furthermore, it appears family planning clinics and even abortion mills receiving federal funds would not be able to discriminate against hiring pro-lifers, which could become verrry interesting.

And, of course, health care professionals could not be forced to participate in abortion or contraception distribution against their conscience.

So here was how NARAL spinned (spun?) the rule in a mass email (click to enlarge):

Here we see a segue between the abortion and euthanasia mentalities. There is no difference between a 9-month-old preborn and a 9-month, 2-day-old postborn except location and how she breathes, is hydrated, and is nourished.

Nor are the mental capabilities between a disabled person like Terri Schiavo and a newborn any different.

Yet in both cases it is legal to kill the former but illegal to kill the latter. Why? Why was this so bad? From WKBT, July 14:

The two people arrested on... July 11 for their role in the death of a young infant made their first appearance in court on Tuesday.

19-year-old Indra Book and 21-year-old Adam O'Connor have been arrested after an investigation by La Crosse police.

Police say during August of 2007, Book gave birth to an infant in her home in La Crosse. The infant died within a few days. Book and O'Connor allegedly tried to cover up the death....

"She tried to breast feed the child twice, she was unsuccesful," District Attorney Tim Gruenke said.... "(She) then decided not to feed the child knowing the result, put the child in a cooler, and put it in the garbage in the spring."

Book is arrested for a charge of first-degree murder and hiding a corpse. O'Connor is arrested for being party to the crime of hiding a corpse and obstructing an officer. Book is being held on a $50,000 cash bond, while O'Connor was released on a $5,000 cash bond....

Police say their investigation and the arrests are a result of a tip....

TMJ4 added:

The two could've give up the baby anonymously under the state's safe haven laws.

[HT: reader Robert King; photo courtesy of the La Crosse Tribune]

CNN reported July 11 that according to the National Institutes of Health, U.S. teen pregnancies in 2006 rose for the first time since 1991....

In the same article, CNN reported a "striking decrease" in the percentage of 8th graders smoking....

While federal health experts were at a loss to explain the spike in teen pregnancies, a CDC official said smoking abated due to "efforts convincing kids and adults not to smoke," according to CNN.

So teaching smoking abstinence works, reminiscent of last decade's "Just Say No" drug abstinence campaign....

Continue reading my column today, "Linking U.S. teen pregnancies and AIDS in Africa," on WorldNetDaily.com.

by Colleen W.

On the blogs today...

Following up on a previous (Prolifer)ations post as well as a post by Jill, this from Monica Miller at Citizens for a Pro-life Society...

Women's Advisory aborted babies video has been remounted!

You Tube never responded to our inquiries. So CPS has taken the initiative and opened a new account with YouTube. We slightly altered the original Abortion Dumpster Scandal-Women's Advisory video that YouTube took off their site last week.

Hopefully this alteration will comply with their "rules" even though we were never told WHY the original video was deleted from YouTube! The new video is called Abortion Exposed. If you haven't seen it, it certainly is a unique, rare, and disturbing look at the abortion industry!

When we remounted this new video we lost all 7000 original hits that were generated on the original video and all the comments that it generated too! So we are back to zero starting today! (The Hodari Dumpster Scandal video is still available. )

Also, a companion video is available on YouTube, Fr. Pavone's YouTube video. It is a recording of CPS's June 27th burial of the Women's Advisory babies. Take a look...

posted at 5:33 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)