Call to Action
If you’re eager to put the “What Can I Do” post into action, here’s your chance.
Obama nominates pro-abortion, pro-p*rn lawyer for #2 position in the office of Attorney General
Your phone calls are needed! The link above provides the same number as the earlier post, giving you direct access to your Senators. Just tell them you want them to oppose the Ogden nomination.
Related posts:
Tags: abortion
abortion, political | Word Warrior | 
February 5, 2009 11:51 am
“1. Defended Child Porn: He filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the notorious Knox v. U.S., (510 U.S. 375) case supporting child pornographer Knox. This is the case in which President Clinton publicly rebuked his own attorney general, Janet Reno for her troublesome position on child pornography. She later withdrew her position in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the child pornography conviction of Knox.”
YIKES. Possibly one of the scariest things Obama has done yet. Incidentally, there is a rumor that this man is being groomed to receive a Supreme Court nomination from Obama when the time comes…
Hi Kelly
This is totally off-topic, but I was just wondering if you could explain to me how you added the “Search This Blog” feature to your sidebar (?)
~Elise
the editrix,
If you use blogger, you choose to add a gagdet and then I did a search for “search box” or “search this blog” and it provided me with a gadget.
People who are not pro-life are NOT pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice. There is a HUGE difference. I’m reality based that some people are incapable of raising and caring for their children. I think this is sad, you see. I’m not like – YAY! Abortions!
Please do not use the term “pro-abortion” – it is both rude and inaccurate. I realize you’ll ignore this, but I feel like we can be civil when the cost is so low.
MOD–comment addressed to the wrong person. I did not use the term, I copied it from the name of the article cited. Not that I don’t use it, but in this article, the term isn’t mine. If we’re gong to nit pick…
Mother of Dog: Terminology doesn’t change reality. Whether you acknowledge it or not, being for the choice of abortion means it is acceptable to you. Therefore, you are for it. You can call it something else to soften it and make yourself feel less guilty about it, but whether or not abortion makes you jump for joy, you are not against it, and if you are not against something, you are for it.
It's funny that I called both of my senators about Ogden's nomination this morning but that I never even mentioned the topic of pornography.
My main problem with Ogden (not that pornography isn't a problem) is that he not only supports the UN's international treaty on the Convention of the Rights of the Child, but that Ogden has said that the treaty is already in effect in our country and that US citizens must abide by the rules of the international treaty, which supercedes state law as well as federal law.
While the US has signed the treaty (under the Clintons), our senate has not ratified it. Therefore, we are NOT obligated to obey it.
This treaty outlaws any type of parental discipline- even time- outs or sending a child to their room. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. I can't even begin to explain how this treaty seeks to undermine everything I stand for as a parent. Maybe Kelly could do a blog on the CRC sometime (I apologize if you already have).
In case you are curious about how truly horrendous the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child is, check out this link:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={2B53865E-A8C1-4FE6-AF67-08789FBE3C0A}
Just as awful as the treaty itself, is the fact that this international treaty/law not only specifies what parents are NOT allowed to do, but that it requires government officials to come up with new mandates and requirements for parents to comply with in order to ensure compliance with the treaty. Countries not in complete compliance (like Ireland and the UK which still allow parents to have their children opt out of sex-ed classes) are written up and strongly criticized.
Governments in countries where this treaty is enforced are authorized to seize children without any proof of abuse or neglect, simply because parents are not raising the government's children the way the government thinks they should be raised.
Anyways- Ogden is not only on board with this treaty but he considers it to already be in effect in the US (and he's willing to enforce it).