If Giuliani can get through primaries, he stacks up well

LOL! And that man wants to become President!

If

..a big if folks...

That's a strong delusion you're under, angkor.

It's apparent from your "handle" that we don't and won't ever share the same worldview.

Many out there that are paying attention and are informed this early, maybe not because they are seeking out the information but daily you can read it in the newspapers, see it on TV or here on the internet. I'm usre you like me have friends or family who don't follow the primary races as closely as we do, but they aren't all that ill informed.

There is lots of time before the primaries and anything can happen. Now, is the time for discussion of the candidates, all of them. I don't think any should be discounted.

"I for one will not vote for him and will got third party."

Which of course is your choice as an American, and with one or both of the people pictured below winning the election being the direct result of your choice.

There's NO WAY that you can convince me that Rudy is a worse option than those two.

I doubt if eithr of them will get the rat nomination. And if so so be it.

A disgusting visual to be sure, and I like Newt!

You are welcome...

Men who dress up as girls and live with two homosexuals will never get a vote from me...

There's NO WAY that you can convince me that Rudy is a worse option than those two.

About the same...

Do you know why Hunter skipped this vote?

Get some new material...

I think Newt should be put in a position of high trust in the cabinet.

Bolton is the one for Secretary of state with orders to clean it of anti-Americans.

"Well, tell that to all the Republicans and yes, Conservatives who support him."

Oh, you mean those that are ok with illegal immigration, gay privileges, 2nd amendment infringement, and baby killing?

FR polls are fun, and they measure our own sentiments. But if they reflected political reality, no matter how smart we think we are, the poll results here would be different.

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Will the RATS take over the House, Senate, both or NEITHER?

Composite Opinion
Neither	75.1%	5,827
Both	11.2%	869
House	8.1%	631
Pass	3.1%	242
Senate	2.5%	191
	100.0%	7,760

Member Opinion
Neither	78.1%	2,545
House	7.5%	245
Both	7.0%	228
Pass	4.2%	136
Senate	3.2%	104
	100.0%	3,258

Non-Member Opinion
Neither	72.9%	3,282
Both	14.2%	641
House	8.6%	386
Pass	2.4%	106
Senate	1.9%	87
	100.0%	4,502

He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice.

Here are the facts about what you, and pro-abortion politicians like Giuliani, are playing semantic games with:

Innocent blood: How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America

By David Kupelian

"Women must have control over their own bodies."

"Safe and legal abortion is every woman's right."

"Who decides? You decide!"

"Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor."

"Who will make this most personal decision of a woman's life? Will women decide, or will the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington?"

"Freedom of choice – a basic American right."

In one of the most successful marketing campaigns in modern political history, the "abortion rights movement" – with all of its emotionally compelling catch-phrases and powerful political slogans – has succeeded in turning what once was a heinous crime into a fiercely defended constitutional right.

During the tumultuous 1960s, after centuries of legal prohibition and moral condemnation of abortion, a handful of dedicated activists launched an unprecedented marketing campaign. Their aim was twofold: first, to capture the news media and thus public opinion, and then, to change the nation's abortion laws.

Their success was rapid and total – resulting in abortion being legalized in all 50 states, for virtually any reason, and throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Since the Supreme Court's controversial Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, American doctors have performed well over 40 million abortions.

Although polls consistently show a clear majority of Americans disapprove of unfettered abortion-on-demand, the movement's well-crafted, almost magical slogans – appealing to Americans' deeply rooted inclination toward tolerance, privacy and individual rights – have provided the abortion camp a powerful rhetorical arsenal with which to fight off efforts to reverse Roe, which struck down all state laws outlawing abortion.

In marketing wars, the party that frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. And the early abortion marketers brilliantly succeeded in doing exactly that – diverting attention away from the core issues of exactly what abortion does to both the unborn child and the mother, and focusing the debate instead on a newly created issue: "choice." No longer was the morality of killing the unborn at issue, but rather, "who decides."

The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s – they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day – were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL – originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League – as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story.

*SNIP*

Every year in the United States, over a million abortions are performed – including tens of thousands of late-term abortions (after the 12th week). Many of these late abortions are carried out by means of amniotic infusion (the injection of a foreign substance into the amniotic sac) of saline, prostaglandin, urea, or another agent designed to kill the unborn baby.

"Saline abortions have to be done in the hospital because of complications that can arise," says OB/GYN staffer Debra Henry. "Not that they can't arise during other times, but more so now. The saline, a salt solution, is injected into the woman's sac and the baby swallows it. The baby starts dying a slow, violent death. The mother feels everything, and many times it is at this point when she realizes that she really has a live baby inside of her, because the baby starts fighting violently for his or her life. He's just fighting inside because he's burning.

"One night a lady delivered and I was called to come and see her because she was uncontrollable," says David Brewer, M.D., of Glen Ellyn, Ill. As a military physician in Ft. Rucher, Ala., Brewer performed abortions for 10 years. "I went in the room, and she was going to pieces; she was having a nervous breakdown, screaming and thrashing. The nurses were upset because they couldn't get any work done, and all the other patients were upset because this lady was screaming. I walked in, and here was her little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs, too."

"I'll tell you one thing about D&E," says Levantino. "You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D&E other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing – you need a lot of strength to do it – arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of a table."

Commenting on late-term D&E abortions, Everett recalls:

My job was to tell the doctor where the parts were, the head being of special significance because it is the most difficult to remove. The head must be deflated, usually by using the suction machine to remove the brain, then crushing the head with large forceps.

The question of how doctors could tear apart a virtually full-grown baby is painful, perplexing, mystifying.

"Psychologically," says Everett, "the doctors always sized the baby at '24 weeks.' However, we did an abortion on one baby I feel was almost full-term. The baby's muscle structure was so strong that it would not come apart. The baby died when the doctor pulled the head off the body."

Kathy Sparks describes a second-trimester abortion:

The baby's bones were far too developed to rip them up with this curette, and so he would have to try to pull the baby out with forceps, in about three or four major pieces. Then he scraped and suctioned and scraped and suctioned, and then this little baby boy was lying on the tray. His little face was perfectly formed, little eyes closed and little ears – everything was perfect about this little boy.

"There are no words to describe how bad it really is," says Everett. "I've seen sonograms of the baby pulling away from the instruments as they are introduced into the vagina. And I've seen D&E's through 32 weeks done without the mother's being put to sleep. And yes, they hurt and they are very painful to the baby, and yes, they are very, very painful to the woman. I've seen six people hold a woman on the table while they did her abortion."

'My heart got calloused'

Physicians are manipulated into going against their own consciences and performing abortions, says Brewer, all in the name of helping women. He describes witnessing a suction abortion for the first time, during his medical training:

I can remember ... the resident doctor sitting down, putting the tube in, and removing the contents. I saw the bloody material coming down the plastic tube, and it went into a big jar. My job afterwards was to go and undo the jar, and to see what was inside.

I didn't have any views on abortion; I was in a training program, and this was a brand new experience. I was going to get to see a new procedure and learn. I opened the jar and took the little piece of stockingette stocking and opened that little bag. The resident doctor said, "Now put it on that blue towel and check it out. We want to make sure that we got it all." I thought, "That'll be exciting – hands-on experience looking at tissue." I opened the sock up and put it on the towel, and there were parts of a person in there.

I had taken anatomy, I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula and an arm, I saw some ribs and a chest, and a little tiny head. I saw a piece of a leg, and a tiny hand and an arm and, you know, it was like somebody put a hot poker into me. I had a conscience, and it hurt. Well, I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head and so forth, and I turned and said, "I guess you got it all." That was a very hard experience for me to go through emotionally.

Here I was with no real convictions, caught in the middle. And so I did what a lot of us do throughout our life. We don't do anything. I didn't talk with anybody about it, I didn't talk with my folks about it, I didn't think about it. I did nothing. And do you know what happened? I got to see another abortion. That one hurt too. But again I didn't do anything, and so I kept seeing abortions. Do you know what? It hurt a little bit less every time I saw one.

Then I got to sit down and do an abortion. Well, the first one that I did was kind of hard. It hurt me again like a hot poker. But after a while, it got to where it didn't hurt. My heart got calloused. I was like a lot of people are today – afraid to stand up. I was afraid to speak up. Or some of us, maybe we aren't afraid, but we just don't have our own convictions settled yet.

One particular abortion changed Brewer's life. "I remember an experience as a resident on a hysterotomy (a late-term abortion delivered by caesarean section). I remember seeing the baby move underneath the sack of membranes as the caesarean incision was made, before the doctor broke the water."

The thought came to me, 'My God, that's a person.' Then he broke the water. And when he broke the water, it was like I had a pain in my heart, just like when I saw the first suction abortion. And then he delivered the baby, and I couldn't touch it. I wasn't much of an assistant. I just stood there, and the reality of what was going on finally began to seep into my calloused brain and heart.

They took that little baby that was making little sounds and moving and kicking, and set it on the table in a cold, stainless steel bowl. And every time I would look over while we were repairing the incision in the uterus and finishing the Caesarean, I would see that little person kicking and moving in that bowl.

And it kicked and moved less and less, of course, as time went on. I can remember going over and looking at that baby when we were done with the surgery and the baby was still alive. You could see the chest was moving and the heart beating, and the baby would try to take a little breath like that, and it really hurt inside, and it began to educate me as to what abortion really was.

'Everything changes'

Levantino, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Troy, N.Y., relates the revealing and very personal story of what happened that caused him to stop performing abortions:

There was this tremendous conflict going on within me. Here I am, doing my D&Cs (an early-term suction abortion), five and six a week, and I'm doing salines on a nightly basis whenever I was on call. The resident on call got the job of doing the salines, and there would usually be two or three of those. They were horrible, because you would see one intact, whole baby being born, and sometimes they were alive. And that was very, very, very frightening. It was a very stomach-turning kind of existence.

My wife and I were looking desperately for a baby to adopt, even while I was throwing them in the garbage at the rate of nine and 10 a week. The thought occurred to me even then, "I wish one of these people would just let me have their child." But it doesn't work that way.

We were lucky – it just took four months before we adopted a healthy little girl, and we called her Heather.

We can talk about why doctors do abortions, and I think that the reasons tend to be more or less universal. But why doctors change their minds, I think, is very personal, very different from one doctor to the next. My reasons for quitting were very personal.

Life was good until June 23, 1984. On that date I was on call, but I was at home at the time. We had some friends over and our children were playing in the back yard. At 7:25 that evening, we heard the screech of brakes out in front of the house. We ran outside, and Heather was lying in the road. We did everything we could, but she died.

Let me tell you something. When you lose a child – your child – life is very different. Everything changes. And all of a sudden the idea of a person's life becomes very real. It's not an embryology course anymore; it's not just a couple of hundred dollars. It's the real thing. It's your child you buried.

The old discomforts came back in spades. I couldn't even think about a D&E abortion any more, no way. Then you start to realize, this is somebody's child. I lost my child – someone who was very precious to us. And now I'm taking somebody's child, and I'm tearing them right out of their womb. I'm killing somebody's child. That's what it took to get me to change.

My own sense of self-esteem went down the tubes. I began to feel like a paid assassin. That's exactly what I was. You watch the movies, when somebody goes up to a hit man and pays them to kill someone; that's exactly what I was doing. It got to a point that it just wasn't worth it to me anymore. The money wasn't worth it. "Poor women," my butt. I don't care. This was coming out of my hide, costing me too much personally. For all the money in the world, it wouldn't have made any difference. So I quit.

Putting the genie back in the bottle

In the strangest of ironies, Bernard Nathanson, perhaps the closest thing to being "the man who started it all" for the "pro-choice movement" – the Edward Teller of abortion – now spends his days trying to put the abortion genie back in the bottle. Like Norma McCorvey – who as the barefoot-and-pregnant "Jane Roe" was the pro-abortion plaintiff in the Supreme Court's momentous and fateful Roe v. Wade decision – Nathanson, also, is today dedicated to putting an end to what both now see as a national tragedy on a par with the Nazi Holocaust.

"Let me share with you my own personal perception of the abortion tragedy," Nathanson told one California audience:

I'm going to set it against my Jewish heritage and the Holocaust in Europe. The abortion holocaust is beyond the ordinary discourse of morality and rational condemnation. It is not enough to pronounce it absolutely evil. Absolute evil used to characterize this abortion tragedy (43 million and counting) is an inept formulation.

The abortion tragedy is a new event, severed from connections with traditional presuppositions of history, psychology, politics and morality. It extends beyond the deliberations of reason, beyond the discernments of moral judgment, beyond meaning itself. It trivializes itself to call itself merely a holocaust or a tragedy.

It is, in the words of Arthur Cohen, perhaps the world's leading scholar on the European Holocaust, a mysterium tremendum, an utter mystery to the rational mind – a mystery that carries with it not only the aspect of vastness, but the resonance of terror, something so unutterably diabolic as to be literally unknowable to us.

"This is an evil torn free of its moorings in reason and causality, an ordinary secular corruption raised to unimaginable powers of magnification and limitless extremity. Nelly Sachs, a poetess who wrote poems on the Holocaust in Europe and who won the Nobel Prize in 1966, wrote a poem called 'Chorus of the Unborn.' Permit me to give you a few lines. She said:

We, the unborn, the yearning has begun to plague us as shores of blood broaden to receive us. Like dew, we sink into love but still the shadows of time lie like questions over our secret."

When we honestly face the sheer barbarism and brutality of abortion – some of which amounts to infant torture and murder – we're left with a dilemma.

Most people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are, by all appearances, reasonable and caring human beings. And yet they condone, and some even champion, the right to perpetrate the very acts of deception, betrayal, mutilation, torture and killing described in these pages. How can this be?

In searching for an explanation, Bernard Nathanson compares America's abortion "holocaust" with what occurred in Germany during WWII. While some might call that a stretch, there are at least a couple of parallels that are both stunning and inescapable – and very instructive.

During the Nazi era, it's a fact that many "reasonable and caring" Germans somehow came to regard Jews as less than human. Somehow their perception had been so tampered with that, although their physical eyes would see a human being, in their minds they saw the Jew as something less than human and therefore disposable.

For that matter, even in our own nation during the Civil War era, the Supreme Court in its infamous Dred Scott decision denied the full personhood of Americans of African origin, and ruled that they could never become U.S. citizens. Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

But what about the Declaration of Independence, with its bedrock affirmation that "all men are created equal"? How did the Supreme Court get around that? According to Chief Justice Taney: "It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration ..."

As it has so many times throughout history, this same dehumanizing phenomenon – complete with an illegitimate blessing by the U.S. Supreme Court – has occurred once again, this time with unborn children as the victims.

*SNIP*

"Well, tell that to all the Republicans and yes, Conservatives who support him."

Oh, you mean those that are ok with illegal immigration, gay privileges, 2nd amendment infringement, and baby killing?

Why do you have such a problem with people being able to see other issues as a priority in this election cycle?

Duncan Hunter could not have voted for the bill in your 'interesting' little card. He's not a Senator, and that was a Senate Bill. You're getting sloppy since you went over to the liberal's side, Registered. Couldn't go to the trouble of finding the House bill number?

I won't vote for someone who dresses up like a girl and lived with two homosexuals...

If you don't like that, I could care less.

That's a disgusting picture. He probably skipped it because the measure had more than enough votes to advance. The other lawmakers showed up because there wasn't a quorum, since some legislators did not allow it to be passed by unanimous consent.

I could understand you having legitimate concerns about his positions on issues, but using that as your reason is merely amusing.