anitacrane.com » politics

Rubio: Life is not a political issue

Anita Crane — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:46:36 +0000

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Rubio: Life is not a political issue

Tells audience woman’s choice should not trump child’s very existence

Published: February 2, 2012

By Anita Crane

WASHINGTON – More than 500 people leaped from their chairs to give Sen. Marco Rubio a standing ovation at the 2012 Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Gala on Wednesday. The freshman Republican senator from Florida was keynote speaker at the SBA List’s 20th anniversary dinner, where Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., also congressional freshmen, gave rousing speeches.

The Susan B. Anthony List’s primary mission is to help pro-life candidates, especially women, get elected. Twenty years ago, Marjorie Dannenfelser, a wife and mother, began this work from her home while surrounded by her children. …

Applause and cheers erupted when Ayotte said, “Here’s my point: Marco Rubio is the real deal!”

Rubio said he was honored to be serving with new leaders like Ayotte. He framed his next comments “with all due respect” because he noticed that he and Ayotte were significantly younger than the median age of most senators. The crowd laughed when Rubio said one of his older colleagues had said Susan B. Anthony was a friend of his and Rubio was no Susan B. Anthony. He also apologized for coming without speech notes, but his teleprompter broke and “someone else” in Washington was ahead of him at the repair shop.

Rubio said when he first got the Senate, he looked around and asked, “How did I get here?” Six months later he looked around and asked, “How did they get here?” All of this led up to Rubio explaining he believes God and his constituents have given him the opportunity to stand up for vulnerable persons such as the unborn, and if he doesn’t he’ll have to answer to God.

Rubio said he was “blown away” by the young leaders awarded at the gala. He said he knows it’s difficult to be pro-life because some who support his fiscal policies tell him to “tone down” his right-to-life efforts.

But Rubio has no intentions of toning down. On Jan. 31, he introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, a bill to repeal a new Obamacare mandate that violates the religious liberties and conscience rights of faith-based institutions by forcing them to offer employees insurance coverage for contraceptives, some of which cause abortions.

Read the full story at WND: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/rubio-life-is-not-a-political-issue/

‘This gets people’s attention like nothing else’

Anita Crane — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:09:09 +0000

WND EXCLUSIVE

‘This gets people’s attention like nothing else’
Roe v. Wade anniversary marked with video documenting abortion horror
Published: January 23, 2012 By Anita Crane

WASHINGTON – Despite sleet and bitter cold, many pro-life Americans in Washington for the March for Life, as well as people from other countries, stopped to watch the video “Created Equal” as it played on a jumbo screen on Constitution Avenue near Fourth Street NW. One of the attractions was the imagery of Martin Luther King Jr. and his voice echoing a few blocks in surrounding areas.

Mark Harrington, executive director of Created Equal in Columbus, Ohio, produced the stunning video by the same name and it begins by warning viewers of graphic and disturbing images of “severe injustice.”

“Our hope is that young people will be reminded and reaffirm their commitment to defend life – why they’re at the march. In many respects, the march doesn’t represent the victims,” Harrington told WND. “If you go to the March for Life, there’s a lot of speeches, the march is good, a lot of young people, a lot of positive stuff. But, for the most part, abortion victims aren’t represented and so we’re representing the victims. People need to be reminded that violence [of abortion] is happening every day.”

A group of Catholic teens stopped to ponder the video, with one boy exclaiming, “It’s cool!” However, the youth leader from their St. Louis, Mo., parish refused to let them be interviewed.

Prior to arriving in Washington, representatives of a Catholic church in Atlanta had complained to Harrington in fear that his public display would upset children.

Jill Stanek, activist, speaker and vigilant blogger at JillStanek.com, was bundled in layers fitting of her hometown Chicago when she came upon the “Created Equal” video scene. Stanek, of course, was a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., when she discovered abortions were being committed there and babies who survived abortion were being left to die without medical care.

She told WND, “I think this is an important movement forward. It’s just the next place that we have to go and I’m just grateful to Created Equal for the video. Some people aren’t going to like it, but it’s the truth and everybody needs to see it – you don’t forget when you see the product of an actual abortion and it changes hearts. The normal complaint is going be about kids seeing it. But in the end, I’d rather have kids see these photos than be in one of these photos.”

“I think people need to see abortion to understand what it is – even the people who are here marching. A lot of them don’t know why they’re here,” Darius Hardwick from Columbus, Ohio, told WND. “I didn’t understand abortion until I saw it. Even pro-life Christians need to see it to change their minds. This gets people’s attention like nothing else.”

Created Equal from Mark Harrington on Vimeo.

Read the rest of the story at WND: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/this-gets-peoples-attention-like-nothing-else/

The Daily Show at its best

Anita Crane — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:07:20 +0000

What has become of journalism? John Oliver interviews the key mover of ‘the Civility Project’

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Romney Used Polls to Determine His 1994 Abortion Position

Anita Crane — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:17:25 +0000

by Ben Johnson
Sat Jan 14, 2012 14:04 EST

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, January 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been dogged by allegations that his shifting positions on abortion have been politically opportunistic. That perception will be bolstered by a new book that reveals Romney consulted polling data before deciding to campaign as “pro-choice” during his 1994 Senate race.

In the book Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Ronald Scott wrote that Romney commissioned former Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin to survey Massachusetts voters on key issues. Wirthlin showed Romney a poll indicating any candidate describing himself as “pro-life” was unelectable in the state.

Before initiating his campaign against then-incumbent Senator Ted Kennedy, Romney informed the elders of his church about his decision to run as a supporter of abortion rights. In November 1993, Romney, Wirthlin, and Scott (all Mormons) presented their case to the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a courtesy. Romney, then a Mormon leader in his state, explained his would label himself personally opposed to abortion but would take no action to outlaw it, a view he later described as “effectively pro-choice.”

The meeting proved a contentious one. “I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking,” Romney said of the exchange.

The Romney campaign has declined to comment on the book’s allegations.

Meanwhile, new information has come to light about the relative whose death from an illegal abortion Romney credited with making him pro-choice in that race. Ann Keenan’s brother, Loren, married Lynn Romney, Mitt’s sister, in the 1950s. Lynn Keenan died at Wyandotte General Hospital on October 7, 1963, when Mitt was just 16-years-old. Her death certificate listed the cause of death as a “criminal recent abortion.”

Sandra Nye, Keenan’s friend from Michigan State University, said, “It was all very hush-hush, because [Mitt’s father George] Romney was governor, and they really wanted this very quiet and to go away.”

The girl’s parents wrote in her obituary that, “Memorial tributes may be sent to the Planned Parenthood Association.”

In a 1994 debate against Kennedy, Romney alluded to Keenan as the inspiration for his first conversion, from pro-life to pro-abortion: “Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

He later elaborated her case “obviously makes one see that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal.”

It would be the first of many twists-and-turns in the governor’s abortion record. The same year, his wife, Ann Romney, made a donation to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards would later say Mitt Romney “used to come to Planned Parenthood events. He asked for our endorsement.”

Kennedy would go on to defeat Romney by 17 percent of the vote in the election that saw Republicans regain control of Congress for the first time in decades.

In 2002, Romney chose to run again, this time for governor. During the campaign, he said, “On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”

After his election, however, he began to change his views again, telling reporters he had been influenced by the state’s debate over creating embryos for scientific research. He stated, “When we were studying cloning in our state, I said, ‘Look, we have gone too far.’ It’s a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.”

Not everyone was convinced, believing Romney told Massachusetts voters what they wanted to hear in order to get elected. His adviser, Mike Murphy, would tell National Review during the 2008 Republican primary race, “He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

After his most recent pro-life turn, Romney said Ann’s contributions to Planned Parenthood speak “for her and not for me…Her positions are not terribly relevant for my campaign.” His wife later made substantial donations to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, becoming its co-chair.

Romney says he now favors overturning Roe v. Wade. When asked during a 2007 debate if he would sign a bill banning all abortions, he replied, “I’d be delighted to sign that bill.” He has said at various times he believes “abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”

His relationship with the pro-life movement in 2012 has at times been strained. In June he declined to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge. In October, Romney told Mike Huckabee, “I’d make sure that the progress that has been made to provide for life and to protect human life is not progress that would be reversed.” Some liken that to his pro-choice position in earlier campaigns, when he said he “was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman’s right to choose as the law existed. ”

This has led critics in both parties to question his core convictions on the issue. Republican strategist Keith Appell stated in 2007, “It’s part of Romney’s challenge: How many epiphanies have you had?”

Collin Raye: This is who I am

Anita Crane — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:32:05 +0000

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Top country singer: This is who I am
‘My fans have responded with great support’

Posted: December 29, 2011
12:20 am Eastern

By Anita Crane
© 2011 WND

Country music star Collin Raye doesn’t just sing his heart out, he also wears his heart on his sleeve.

As spokesman for the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, Raye boldly defends the fundamental human right to life and calls people to political action.

He recently released “His Love Remains” for the love of God and his late granddaughter, who died at the age of 10 from neurological disorders that impaired her breathing.

“I made a decision years ago, especially during Haley’s illness, to focus on what’s important and my fans responded accordingly,” Raye told WND. “This album is the first time I’ve been able to say, ‘I’m a Christian music artist and I’m lovin’ it!’

“If you take a stand on issues, some people are going to get upset. But for the most part, my fans have responded with great support because they know I’m passionate about my faith and it’s just about deciding to fight the good fight above board and in front of everybody instead of trying to do it behind the scenes.”

Read the rest of the story: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=381897#ixzz1huS5j7M6

Photo by Jonathan Fowler, courtesy of CollinRaye.com

Veterans Day 2011

Anita Crane — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:14:58 +0000

This year Veterans Day fell on the once-in-a-century date of 11/11/11 and WND asked me to cover the Veteran Defenders of America rally in Washington, D.C.

The story, co-authored by Bob Unruh, a WND editor, is here: Hope? Vets say not until Obama leaves http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=366957#ixzz1dYkK2KOz. Few pictures were used, so I’ve made a little photo essay on this page. I humbly thank U.S. veterans and active-duty Armed Forces for serving our country at the risk of their own lives.

Three patriots bow their heads in prayer. Willie Squires is a Vietnam veteran who served in the Air Force, Jeff Scyers served in the Army, and Mark Welsh also served in the Air Force. (Anita Crane © 2011. All rights reserved.)

Richard Brooks, a Navy veteran who served 1960-64, traveled from Kennett Square, Pa. wearing a Civil War Union uniform and flying the Pennsylvania flag of that era. “This is Veterans Day. I came to represent all the veterans from 1960 to 1964. I also came to represent my great grandfather, who fought for the Union, 1861 to 1865.” Carol Matthews, a petite woman sporting a National Rifle Association cap, came from Ocala, Fla. with husband Robert, a retired U.S. Marine. (Anita Crane © 2011. All rights reserved.)

Poll: Mississippi Personhood Amendment May Pass

Anita Crane — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:38:12 +0000

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones isn’t happy, but good article nonetheless: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/mississippi-personhood-amendment-may-pass-tuesday

Ken Cuccinelli on latest Obamacare ruling

Anita Crane — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:06:44 +0000

Latest newsletter from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

Sept 16, 2011

Dear Fellow Virginians and Americans,

As you all probably know, we heard from the Fourth Circuit last week in Virginia’s healthcare lawsuit.

The court decided unanimously to throw the case out on standing and not address the merits of our constitutional arguments.

However, the story is far more complicated than that. You may recall that Liberty University’s suit was heard at the very same time as Virginia’s. The court threw that case out as well; however, two of the judges stated what they would have done on the merits, and that has interesting implications as we press on to the Supreme Court.

Here are the things I’m going to address today:

-The court’s ruling that Virginia lacks standing to bring the lawsuit;

-The implications of the court’s standing ruling for state sovereignty; and

-The extraordinary position of the court as compared with Federalist 51 (you know, written by that radical guy by the name of James Madison…).

Then I’ll do a quick walk-through of the Liberty ruling, and I’ll explain how it relates to Virginia’s case. Finally, I’ll note the three unique aspects of what this court did last Thursday that make the decisions true outliers that need to be corrected.

The Court’s Ruling

Before the federal health care bill became law, Virginia passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA). The VHCFA applies to employers and governments in Virginia and anyone else who might seek to force a Virginian to buy health insurance. With limited exceptions, it provides that no one can mandate that a Virginian buy health insurance.

Along came the federal government and passed the federal health care bill. In that bill was the individual mandate requiring most all citizens to buy federal government-approved health insurance. The individual mandate conflicted with the VHCFA, and under the supremacy clause the federal law would trump; however, the supremacy clause does not apply if the federal law is unconstitutional.

Thus was born Virginia’s lawsuit.

We sued the day the President signed the bill – May 23, 2010 – the 235th anniversary of Patrick Henry’s ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ speech. So began our fight for liberty against the unconstitutional federal mandate.

To bring any lawsuit, a plaintiff must have what is called “standing.” Standing is the right to sue.

To have standing, a plaintiff has to be able to show three things: 1) an injury; 2) that is currently occurring or is certain to occur; and 3) the court must be able to remedy the injury if the plaintiff wins.

Virginia’s injury is that the federal government’s health care law stops Virginia from exercising its legal authority to regulate health insurance mandates using the VHCFA.

This is an injury unique to a state. You and I don’t have a code of laws. States do. And States have the right to protect their code of laws. In fact, as attorney general, I have an obligation to protect Virginia’s laws (the district court judge in our case explicitly noted that responsibility).

Our suit was premised on redressing this sovereign injury. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected our position, stating that, to allow Virginia to bring this suit would allow States to act as “roving constitutional watchdogs” over the federal government. And yes, that quote comes straight from the opinion!

We now know what caused the earthquake in Virginia – James Madison obviously saw a draft version of the final order and rolled over in his grave!

This ruling is an extraordinary assault on state sovereignty and the role for States envisioned by the Founders in our constitutional system.

If you read Federalist 51 – written by that constitutional radical from Virginia, James Madison – you will find that States are supposed to check federal power when the federal government gets outside its constitutional authority!!!

From Federalist 51:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federalism], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [separation of powers]. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

How do you suppose the “different governments” are supposed to “control each other?” Contests of authority are carried out in the federal courts – exactly what we are doing, and directly contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion! In fact, as the United States Supreme Court noted in 1992 in New York v. United States,

“In 1788, in the course of explaining to the citizens of New York why the recently drafted Constitution provided for federal courts, Alexander Hamilton observed: ‘The erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may, in a particular manner, be expected to flow from the establishment of a constitution founded upon the total or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties.’ Hamilton’s prediction has proved quite accurate. . . . While no one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, the task of ascertaining the constitutional line between federal and state power has given rise to many of the Court’s most difficult and celebrated cases. At least as far back as Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816), the Court has resolved questions ‘of great importance and delicacy’ in determining whether particular sovereign powers have been granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government or have been retained by the States.”

The Liberty Ruling

Liberty lost its case in the district court in the Western District of Virginia (we were in the Eastern District of Virginia), and so they appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Their oral argument was the same day and before the same three-judge panel as Virginia’s.

The Liberty plaintiffs were found not to have standing in their case under what is known as the Anti-Injunction Act or “AIA”. I won’t go into this, but suffice it to say that other judges around the country considered the AIA in other cases and not one judge anywhere in America found this statute to apply. In fact, even President Obama’s Justice Department conceded in the Fourth Circuit that the AIA did not bar Liberty’s suit.

So, in addition to being the only appeals court to deny a State the authority to defend its own law, they are also the only court in any of the health care cases to find that the AIA applies. That’s two “unique” conclusions.

The vote to dismiss the case based on the AIA was 2-1.

Normally, when a case is kicked out under the AIA (or on standing), the judges do not comment on the merits of the case. To do so would violate the long held principle that the federal courts do not issue merely “advisory” opinions. However, in Liberty’s case, two judges did comment on the merits.

Judge Davis was the one judge that voted against kicking the case out under the AIA. He said that he agreed with all of the other judges around the country who had concluded that the AIA did not apply. He then explained how he would have ruled on the merits, indicating he would have found Congress had the power to implement the mandate and penalty under the commerce clause.

It was not unusual for Judge Davis to issue an opinion that discussed the merits. Because he voted not to kick the case out under the AIA, all he was doing was saying how he thought the case should have been resolved.

Despite finding that the case was not properly before the court because of the AIA, Judge Wynn wrote an opinion that also addressed the merits of Liberty’s challenge. This opinion provided the THIRD “unique” aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s health care opinions. Judge Wynn said that he would have upheld the federal health care law under the taxing power of the constitution.

So far, 16 different judges have addressed this subject and he is the ONLY judge in America to say he would uphold the federal health care law under the taxing power.

This is truly an extraordinary position. What it means is that Congress can pass a law to tell you to do anything (as long as it doesn’t violate some other part of the constitution like the free speech or double jeopardy clauses), and as long as they fine you ($$$) if you disobey their command, that fine is an exercise of Congress’ constitutional taxing power and that makes the underlying statutory command constitutional!

Congress could pass a law ordering us all to wear purple on Mondays, pink on Tuesdays, etc. and fine you $50 if you disobey. And Judge Wynn’s reasoning would say that the $50 fine is an exercise of the taxing power and therefore such a statute was constitutional.

Conclusion

So, we lost in the Fourth Circuit; however, we are working on our appeal right now and will file it as soon as practicable. And the fact that the Fourth Circuit is utterly alone in three extraordinary aspects of its rulings leads me to be cautiously confident that the Supreme Court will take a different course regarding all three of those aspects of the Fourth Circuit’s decisions.

I am still cautiously optimistic that the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful that we will have such a ruling by the end of June of 2012. Whether that happens in our case or in another does not matter so long as the correct constitutional answer is reached.

The federal government will likely try to slow the case down by asking for more time to file its brief in our case and by asking to drag out the appeal in the 11th circuit (where the Florida case with 26 other states was decided). So it is still possible that this will not be decided before Election Day 2012; however, if you were President Obama, do you really want this being argued in the Supreme Court in October of 2012? I would think he’d want it disposed of in June 2012 rather than watching a maelstrom of news coverage related to the case on the verge of the election.

Nonetheless, they keep doing everything they can to drag it out.

I will keep you informed!

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II

Attorney General of Virginia

Tell others to sign up for The Cuccinelli Compass at Attorney General Cuccinelli’s Website:
http://www.Cuccinelli.com

Authorized and Paid for by Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General

Please direct your replies to KC4AG@Cuccinelli.com.

Labor Day? Phyllis Schlafly on China and the jobs crisis

Anita Crane — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:06:37 +0000

Candidates Should Be Talking About China

by Phyllis Schlafly

September 2, 2011

Phyllis Schlafly

The media are absorbed with the race for the Republican presidential nomination, commenting on daily fluctuations in the polls, and predicting who will win. But why are they omitting discussion of the elephant in the room — China? When Donald Trump briefly considered running for President, his straight talk about China helped him rise to the top of the Republican field. So, why aren’t the media interrogators asking other candidates any China questions?

Communist China is a tremendous national security issue. The only cut Barack Obama is willing to make in federal spending is in our military power, which means he will be ceding our military superiority to China and other hostile totalitarian nations.

While Obama is shutting down our U.S. space program, China is going full-speed ahead to achieve space dominance along with the ability to deny it to America. Space is essential to the gathering, transmission and use of information necessary to fight and win future wars.

This year China unveiled a new, high-tech stealth fighter plane that could pose a significant threat to our air superiority. A Chinese military milestone was passed when China’s first aircraft carrier completed its maiden voyage.

China is deploying a new anti-ship ballistic missile that can sink U.S. aircraft carriers. China is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons to use against our aircraft carriers in any conflict over Taiwan.

Communist China is a huge jobs issue, and jobs is the number-one presidential campaign issue. China is a killer of U.S. jobs, not only from U.S. outsourcing but by taking thousands of construction jobs away from U.S. workers.

Despite California’s 10 percent unemployment, China will soon finish rebuilding the great San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge damaged in the 1989 earthquake. A Chinese company built the construction machinery and the 12 bridge segments in China and is installing them in California, using 3,000 imported Chinese workers (steel-cutters, welders, engineers, etc.), paid $12 a day, working 7 a.m. till 11 p.m., seven days a week, and sleeping in a company dorm.

China has already built seven U.S. schools, and has bought a large chunk of real estate in Toledo, Ohio and oil and gas fields in Texas.

China has contracts to build a 4,000-room casino in Atlantic City, and to refurbish the Alexander Hamilton bridge over the Harlem River.In Idaho, China is using a federal program that grants permanent residency to foreign nationals and special tax exemptions to foreign firms that move to the U.S. But surprise, surprise, the Chinese industries in Idaho will be staffed by imported Chinese workers.Targets of Chinese investment in New York include the New York subway system, a Metro-North train platform near Yankee stadium, luxury apartments, and major leases in the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center.

There’s even more stunning info in Phyllis’ article. Read the rest here: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2011/sept11/11-09-02.html

Money – that’s what we want

Anita Crane — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:47:56 +0000

Yeah, yeah. Money will be the No. 1 issue for most Americans when we vote in 2012, so this song “Money (That’s What I Want)” came to mind. It was written by Motown founder Berry Gordy with Janie Bradford and Barrett Strong’s recording became a 1959 hit. Twenty years later, the Flying Lizards covered it with smashing international success and the backstory is very surprising from the way they got their unique sound to the fact they had almost NO money. Here they are, Julian Marshall, Deborah Evans and David Cunningham, plus Chris Welch, author of One Hit Wonders, which I haven’t read. First the story, then the original music video. Just a little homage to success on a shoestring budget…
Buy the way (pardon the pun), you can get the music and the book by clicking on my Amazon links to the right ->