Republic Heritage - Latest in Political News!

Stand Down

2013-05-07T05:47:00.000-05:00

Special Forces operatives ordered to stand down during Benghazi attack

A team of U.S. Special Forces in Tripoli preparing to respond to the attack last September on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was ordered to stand down by U.S. Special Forces Command Africa, according to written congressional testimony from the deputy to murdered Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Special Forces officers were slated to board a C-130 from Tripoli to Benghazi at around 6 a.m. on the night of the attack when their commander, Lt. Col. Gibson, was told he did not have the authority to send in his team, according to excerpts of Gregory Hicks’ testimony published by CBS News.

Hicks said the U.S. mission in Benghazi was in touch with the Special Forces team during the attack and expected them to respond.

“We fully intended for those [Special Forces] guys to go [on the flight], because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability to the bare minimum,” said Hicks in testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “They were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when [Lt. Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, you can’t go now, you don’t have authority to go now. And so they missed the flight.”

Hicks said Gibson told him that “I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.”

The new allegations appear to contradict the Obama administration’s claim that State Department officials did not request military backup. Hicks and other whistleblowers will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is resuming its hearings into the Benghazi attack on Wednesday.

Read the full story

The Immigration Transformation

2013-05-07T05:46:00.003-05:00

Mark Steyn

A rational immigration reform would attempt to reorient, not accelerate, current policy.

Most countries in the world have irrelevant numbers of “immigrants.” In the Americas, for example, only Canada, America, and the British West Indies have significant non-native populations. In Mexico, immigrants account for 0.6 percent of the population, and that generally negligible level prevails all the way down through Latin America until you hit a blip of 1.4 percent with Chile and 3.8 percent in Argentina. There’s an isolated exception in Belize, which, like the English Caribbean, has historical patterns of internal migration within the British Commonwealth, such as one sees, for example, in the number of New Zealand–born residents of Australia. But profound sweeping demographic transformation through immigration is a phenomenon only of the Western world in the modern era, and even there America leads the way.

Over 20 percent of all the immigrants on the planet are in the United States. The country’s foreign-born population has doubled in the last two decades to 40 million — officially. Which is the equivalent of Washington taking a decision to admit every single living Canadian, and throwing in the population of New Zealand as a bonus. Thank goodness they didn’t do that, eh? (Whoops.) Otherwise, America would have been subject to some hideous, freakish cultural transformation in which there would be hockey franchises in Florida, and Canadian banks on every street corner in New York trumpeting their obnoxious jingoistic slogans (“TD: America’s neighborhood bank”), and creepy little pop stars with weird foreign names like Justin and Carly Rae doing the jobs America’s teen heartthrobs won’t do. What a vile alien nightmare that would be to wake up in.

Not so very long ago, its national mythology notwithstanding, the United States was little different from most other countries. In 1970, its foreign-born population was 4.7 percent. And, while most of the West has embraced mass immigration in the last half-century, America differs significantly from those developed countries, like Canada and Australia, that favor skilled migrants. Personally, I don’t see what’s so enlightened and progressive about denuding Third World nations of their best and brightest to be your doctors and nurses, but it does demonstrate a certain ruthless self-interest. By contrast the majority of U.S. foreign-born residents now come from Latin America, and more than a quarter of them — 12 million — from Mexico. A policy of “family reunification” will by definition lead to low-skilled immigrants: An engineer or computer scientist is less likely to bring in an unending string of relatives — because his dad’s a millionaire businessman in Bangalore and his brother’s a barrister in London, and they’re both happy and prosperous where they are. Insofar as there is any economic benefit to mass immigration, it’s more than entirely wiped out by chain importation of elderly dependents and other clients for the Big Government state.

So any rational immigration reform that respected the interests of the American people would attempt to reorient present policy. Instead, the Gang of Eight’s bill will cement it, and accelerate it. According to Numbers USA, if the immigration bill passed, it would increase the legal population of the United States by 33 million in its first decade. That figure includes 11.7 million amnestied illegals and their children, plus 17 million family members imported through chain migration, with a few software designers on business visas to round out the numbers.

Thirty-three million is like importing the entire population of Canada . . . oh, wait, we did that shtick three paragraphs ago. Okay, if you’re black, look at it this way: The demographic clout it took you guys four centuries to amass can now be accomplished overnight at a stroke of Chuck Schumer’s and Lindsey Graham’s pens. And, if you belong to the 40 percent of Americans who’ll be encountering many of these “chain migrants” in the application line for low-skilled service jobs, isn’t it great to know that in this gangbusters economy you’re going to have to pedal even faster just to go nowhere?

Speaking of demographic clout, the main reason for not importing 33 million Canadians is that they’re supposedly a bunch of liberal pantywaists and the Republican party would never be elected to anything ever again. But fortunately 33 million Latin Americans are, as we’ve been assured time and again by Charles Krauthammer and other eminent voices, “a natural conservative constituency” — which I think translates into Spanish as “una parte del electorado conservador natural.” I Googled this phrase and it got no hits, so perhaps Dr. Krauthammer got lost in translation. But I’ll take his word for it that, once America assumes the demographics of California, the Republican party will be unstoppable.

Aside from that electoral windfall, the benefits of Schumer-Rubio “comprehensive” “reform” seem doubtful. Every new arrest in the Boston Marathon bombing reveals some laughably obvious breach of the system. Alert to the possibility that the involvement of various hardworking immigrants in the recent unpleasantness might not be the best advertisement for his bill, John McCain is now proposing that the United States look more carefully at admitting persons “from countries that have histories such as Dagestan and Chechnya and others where there has been significant influence of radical Islamic extremism.” Incendiary Chechens is nothing a bit more bureaucratic oversight can’t cure.

Read the rest of the column

And there is this...

The Rubio Amnesty

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say

2013-05-07T05:46:00.002-05:00

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.

Read the full article

The Reactionary Republicans

2013-05-07T05:46:00.001-05:00

Jeffrey Lord

The only thing GOP moderates have to fear: Can they get over FDR?

You can call them The Reactionary Republicans.

Or, if you prefer, The Collectivist Conservatives.

Whether in the media or think tanks or elsewhere, they are out there to carry water for the oldest and stalest of thread-bare political arguments, desperately trying to make the idea of eagerly reacting to liberals and liberalism a shiny new idea all over again.

Over at the Washington Post, the wonderfully misrepresented “conservative” columnist Jennifer Rubin believes conservatives should ditch Reagan for Franklin Roosevelt.

At the Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Peter Berkowitz is out with his rule book for Gerald Ford Republicans.

While over at MSNBC ex-Republican Congressman-turned-morning-talk show-host Joe Scarborough (as detailed here by Sean Hannity and the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell in a Hannity Media Mash segment) prattles on with the liberal line on everything from gun control (he’s for it) to talk radio (he’s against it).

All three — and by no means are they alone — are following the age-old path that has been trod by Republicans of moderate stripe from Herbert Hoover to the Bushes. And don’t forget Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, the Richard Nixon of 1960, Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain and the ideologically mushed Mitt Romney.

The latter — who famously was an icon of “conservative” columnist Rubin (she managing the decidedly rare feat of bringing Left and Right together on the notion that she was a Romney “shill,” as and here at the Right’s Red State) — managed to carve a career where he was both for and against abortion, against Reagan before he was for Reagan, not to mention being the gubernatorial architect of Romneycare, the ideological father of Obamacare. No wonder Jen Rubin was crazy about the guy.

With all these miserably lost elections based on “moderation” you would think those who keep on keeping on with the idea of moderation that has repeatedly certified so many Republican presidential losers or closer-than-should be victories would have the decency to quietly slink off to re-think. Re-think the idea that “moderation” has anything new to contribute beyond losing presidential campaigns and what Mark Levin calls “Neo-Statist” government.

But…. Nah.

Now comes the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz to amusingly enter Republican moderation in the philosophies-of-the-ages sweepstakes, writing a book titled Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation.

In which Mr. Berkowitz, who has been down this road many times in various articles, insists that Big Government is here to stay, that the political moderation of conservatism “is a constitutional imperative and a demanding virtue” and that, oh by the way, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan were really moderates.

And all of this old moderation is to be laundered and tidied-up to be reborn under the new name of “Constitutional Conservatism.”

So says Berkowitz in a book that confuses timidity with moderation, resignation with political wisdom and in spite of the book’s title cannot hide the fact that what’s being presented isn’t about the constitution, much less is it about conservatism.

Where to begin?

Read the rest of the column

Are Gay Basketball Players Greater Heroes than Decorated Soldiers?

2013-05-07T05:46:00.000-05:00

Glenn Beck Keynote Speech at 2013 NRA Convention

2013-05-05T10:53:00.003-05:00

2013 NRA Convention Speeches

2013-05-04T18:45:00.000-05:00

This year's NRA Convention is being held in Houston, Texas this weekend and it may be their most important convention ever.

Glenn Beck will be delivering the keynote tonight and I will post it as soon as I get it. Until then, enjoy the patriots below.

Reggie

Pentagon: Soldiers Could be Prosecuted for Promoting their Faith

2013-05-02T12:28:00.001-05:00

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
― George Washington

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

Read More>>

Why Ted Cruz is not a Typical Freshman Senator

2013-04-23T04:54:00.002-05:00

Cruz is fantastic and we need 97 more like him. We know we can count on Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) & Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). America is in a sorry state when we realize there are 3 out of 100 Senators that will protect and defend the Constitution. - Reggie

Dianne Feinstein was agitated.

The Democratic senator from California did not like the line of questioning she was getting from Sen. Ted Cruz, the freshman Republican from Texas, as she defended her so-called assault weapons bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March.

Cruz was reciting from the Constitution. He then asked that given Feinstein’s position on the government banning certain types of guns: Would she also approve of the government banning books it found harmful?

“I’m not a sixth grader,” Feinstein responded, expressing contempt for the question. She went on to point out that she had “studied the Constitution myself,” and “am reasonably well-educated.”

“I thank you for the lecture,” she added.

The heated debate between the two senators was significant. Cruz now admits he thinks his aggressive questioning helped draw negative attention to the bill, stopping it from ever having a serious chance of passing.

It also illustrates the kind of first-term senator Cruz has become. In his first 100 days on Capitol Hill, Cruz has been tireless in trying to shape the political debate in the Senate, from guns to Obamacare to drones to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s nomination hearings.

In an interview with The Daily Caller last week, Cruz said, “My focus every day in office has been on two things. Number one, defending the Constitution. And number two, fighting to restore economic growth.”

Cruz’s outspokenness has not gone unnoticed by his colleagues.

“He’s been right in the middle of almost every major debate we’ve had,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, told TheDC in an interview. “And that’s pretty unusual for somebody who just arrived and was just sworn in.”

Speaking by phone, McConnell said of Cruz: “He’s a force. Already.”

Asked if the 42-year-old Cruz is more outspoken than the typical freshman lawmaker, the leader said there’s “no question.”

“I say that with admiration,” McConnell said. “Now others, some people are saying that with a different connotation. I think he was fully prepared intellectually and temperamentally to hit the ground running and not, you know, be intimidated by the place. And I think that’s something to be admired.”

As his encounter with Feinstein indicates, the former Texas solicitor general is fond of talking about the country’s founding documents.

“Ted is one of these guys you can ask about any provision in the Constitution and he can recite it for you almost verbatim,” Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee said.

With all of his activity, Cruz is developing a national fan base of conservatives. He keynotes national conservative confabs, like the Conservative Political Action Conference. He is also comfortable taking the conservative message to the Sunday shows, once battling New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on “Meet the Press.”

His supporters argue he can help improve the Republican Party’s image with youthful vigor, humor and a positive message. He often speaks of what he calls “opportunity conservatism.”

Read the rest of the article

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Immigration Sophistry

2013-04-23T04:54:00.000-05:00

Thomas Sowell

Most laws are meant to stop people from doing something, and to penalize those who disregard those laws. More generally, laws are meant to protect the society from the law breakers.

But our immigration laws are different. Here the whole focus is on the "plight" of those who have broken the laws, and on what can be done to lift the stigma and ease the pressures they feel, so that they can "come out of the shadows" and "normalize" their lives.

Merely using the word "illegal" to describe their breaking the law is considered to be a sign of mean-spiritedness, if not racism. The Associated Press refuses to let their reporters refer to people who sneaked across the border into this country, in violation of American immigration laws, as "illegal immigrants."

On the other hand, if an ordinary American citizen breaks a law, no one cares if he has to live in fear for years -- "in the shadows," as it were -- worrying that his illegal act will be discovered and punished. No one bothers to come up with euphemisms to keep from calling what he did illegal.

No cities announce that they will provide "sanctuary," so that American shoplifters, or even jay-walkers, will be protected from the law. But, in some places, illegal immigrants are treated almost as if they were in a witness protection program.

What is even more remarkable about this special treatment is that you are not supposed to think about it as special treatment. When a new immigration law is proposed that simply overlooks violations of the old law, that is not supposed to be called "amnesty" -- even though the word "amnesty" has the same root as "amnesia." It is all about forgetting.

Why is it not supposed to be called "amnesty"? Because illegal immigrants must "earn" their citizenship. But if an ordinary American citizen gets a traffic ticket, the law is not going to just forget about it, no matter what good deeds he does afterwards.

People who come here perfectly legally have to earn their citizenship. Why is earning citizenship some special reason for ignoring the illegality of others?

Impressive feats of sophistry have become the norm in discussions of illegal immigration.

For example, we are told that there is no way that the government can find all the people who are in the country illegally and deport them. Does anyone imagine that the government can find all the embezzlers, drunk drivers or bank robbers in the country? And does anyone think that this is a reason why the government should stop trying to enforce laws against embezzlement, drunk driving or bank robbery? Or let embezzlers, drunk drivers and bank robbers "come out of the shadows" and "normalize" their lives?

Read the rest of the column

Gosnell is Not an Exception

2013-04-23T04:53:00.001-05:00

Star Parker

Kirsten Powers has done a national service, by virtue of her now famous USA Today column, of getting the news of the trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on the national radar screen.

This of course, is the horror story of a cesspool in Philadelphia posturing as an abortion clinic, operating without inspection for 17 years. Gosnell, the doctor who ran the place, has been formally charged of murder of one woman and seven infants.

However, the grand jury report and testimony of family and staff at the trial indicate that if there were records in this dump, where life and death were meted out daily, Gosnell would be indicted for hundreds of murders of live children.

Most likely, and sadly, this horror story will have its fifteen minutes of fame and the nation will move on. The national press got dragged unwillingly to report it, finally, because of Ms. Powers’ courageous column. But there is no way to keep them on a story they don’t want to cover.

Maybe we can keep this story alive by keeping in mind a few things.

What was happening in Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic was not some bizarre exception to the rule.

You can ask Day Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-life Union. Her life is dedicated to covering these realities. In her words, “This is not an exception. These realities are happening every day all over our country.”

Despite the sense that no one was paying attention to the Gosnell story before Kirsten Powers wrote about it, know that Dr. Gardner, Dr. Alveda King, and other pro-life activists were demonstrating outside Gosnell’s clinic as early as February 2011.

They held a press conference about the trial on April 4, a week before Powers’ column appeared. Alveda King wrote in her blog the day before, “…Rev. Clenard Childress and Dr. Day Gardner…are in Philadelphia reporting on the Kermit Gosnell trial that the mainstream media is virtually ignoring.“

Just this week, The Washington Times has reported that Gosnell-like conditions have existed at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Vice President Biden’s own backyard in Delaware.

The Times reports “Abortions have been suspended at a Delaware Planned Parenthood, after several 911 calls made from within the clinic prompted a new investigation by Health and Human Services.”

Two nurses quit to protect their licenses, one saying “I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.”

According to the story, “Since Jan. 4, five patients have been rushed to the emergency room.”

Read the rest of the column

Why Do Radical Muslims Hate Us?

2013-04-23T04:53:00.000-05:00

Dr. Michael Brown

What would motivate two young Muslims to blow up innocent men, women, and children? What did America do to deserve such an outpouring of irrational, blind hatred? In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, it is clear that most Americans still do not understand the ideology of radical Islam.

Bill O’Reilly noted that America had been very kind to the Tsarnaev family, wondering how they could have paid back our generosity with such barbaric acts of terror. America is a great, open-hearted country that welcomed this immigrant family and made the American dream accessible to them. Now they kill and maim our people?

More than two decades ago, Daniel Coleman, an American intelligence agent, wondered what it was that fueled the fires of an obscure Islamic radical named Osama bin Laden. Reading one of bin Laden’s writings, Coleman observed that “one of the striking features of the document was that time seemed to have stopped a thousand years ago. There was now and there was then, but there was nothing in between. It was as if the Crusades were still going on in bin Laden’s universe. The intensity of the anger was also difficult for Coleman to grasp. What did we do to him? he wondered” (as recounted by Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower).

As Coleman was to learn, and as all of America should have learned by now, in the eyes of radical Muslims, America has done much to deserve their wrath.

First, America’s wars in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are considered to be Western intrusions into the Muslim world, power-grabbing moves aimed at world domination, sometimes motivated by greed (= oil), always motivated by a sense of the superiority of American democracy.

What we view as wars of liberation at the cost of precious American lives, they view as acts of exploitation, as murderous incursions that are wiping out hundreds of thousands, if not millions of their people. (I am not supporting these views; I am simply stating how radical Muslims view us.)

How many Iraqi and Afghani citizens have been killed by American bombs? they would ask. How many innocent Muslim men, women, and children have been slaughtered? They will now inflict that same terror on us, not by dropping bombs on us from the air (since they don’t have the capability of doing so), but by planting bombs on our busy city streets.

Read the rest of the column

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell’s Silent Co-Conspirators

2013-04-22T18:25:00.002-05:00

Without a doubt, this has to be one of the most heinous, gruesome and bloodcurdling cases I have ever heard in my life! For those that have not heard of Dr. Kermit Gosnell or his Philadelphia abortion clinic, you need to prepare yourself before reading further. When I first began reading articles about this trial a couple of weeks ago my thoughts went to Nazi Germany and the atrocities committed in the 1930's & 1940's. On at least one occasion, I had to stop reading because I could no longer read about the indifferent slaughter of new born human beings. It is extremely jolting.

I also encourage you to read American Infanticide, a recent column by Sherman Frederick, if you think you can tolerate the truth about this American Mengele. There is also a short documentary here.

One more thing. Gosnell's abortion clinic was raided over three years ago and there has been a deliberate blackout concerning this trial in the mainstream media so don't feel ignorant if this is the first time you've heard of it. I pray to God there are no more Gosnell's to uncover but I fear there are.

Michelle Malkin has done great work on this case so I'm posting part of her current column below.

Reggie

Michelle Malkin

The grisly defense is set to begin this week in the trial of accused serial baby-killer/death doctor Kermit Gosnell. My latest column puts Gosnell’s silent co-conspirators in the spotlight. My Gosnell archive is here.

Update: President Obama heads to a Planned Parenthood fundraising gala as the Gosnell trial, on which he has no comment or position, continues.

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell’s Silent Co-Conspirators

by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2013

Planned Parenthood now says it’s “appalled” by the Philadelphia house of horrors run by accused serial baby-killer and pregnant-mom murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Bull.

The appalling inaction of the nation’s largest abortion provider, along with countless other clinics and “pro-choice” groups in the know, speaks far louder than their belatedly self-serving words.

The criminal trial of Gosnell is entering week six. The death doctor faces seven counts of first-degree murder for severing the spinal cords of babies born alive during abortions. That’s in addition to one count of third-degree murder in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee who died of a monstrously negligent drug overdose at Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society” clinic. Her family has brought a separate civil suit against Gosnell.

Conservative and pro-life journalists have covered the gruesome case since Gosnell’s arrest more than two years ago. Through social media, last week faithful chroniclers of this evil killing spree finally forced national outlets to acknowledge their selective attention to mass murder. While mainstream journalists flogged partisan story lines about the GOP’s “war on women,” turned birth control crusader Sandra Fluke into the nation’s Florence Nightingale and splashed the photos of Sandy Hook children all over their front pages, the mostly poor and minority women and babies victimized by Gosnell went ignored.

The liberal Atlantic Magazine admitted last week: It “should be a front-page story.” After a relentless Twitter campaign by pro-lifers, The New York Times grudgingly sent a reporter to the trial. But this is so much more than a media malpractice story. It’s the nightmarish consequence of medical and ideological malpractice.

As I first noted in my column and on my blog when the scissors-wielding sadist was arrested in January 2011, the murders committed under the banner of “choice” were ignored for four decades by abortion advocates. The Philadelphia grand jury report, now amplified by trial testimony, outlined the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming viable babies. The panel concluded that the “vast majority of the babies he aborted” were more than 24 weeks old.

Gosnell joked that one murdered baby was so big, the child “could walk around with me.”

Read the full column

Philly-area columnist J.D. Mullane asks:

Wondering: Did Dr. Kermit Gosnell ever deliver a baby and let it live? #Gosnell
— jdmullane (@jdmullane) April 18, 2013

Glenn Beck Reveals More About Saudi National

2013-04-22T10:49:00.003-05:00

Earlier today on his radio program, Glenn Beck, revealed more information about the Saudi national that was a suspect in the Boston bombings last week.

Just like Fox News... we report, you decide.

Who is the Saudi National Associated with the Boston Terror Attack?

2013-04-21T12:28:00.001-05:00

Greetings!

This past week, Glenn Beck talked about a mysterious Saudi national that was the first suspect arrested in connection with the recent Boston massacre. These two videos are self explanatory.

This is my first post in over five months although thousands have continued to visit Republic Heritage and, for that, Michael and I thank you.

Reggie

Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN

2013-01-12T14:01:00.000-06:00

Ben Swann Debunks Piers Morgan's Anti-Gun Argument

2013-01-12T13:09:00.001-06:00

Paychecks are Lighter

2013-01-12T13:01:00.002-06:00

Gabriella Hoffman’s paycheck is a little lighter today, thanks to a payroll tax increase that is forcing millions of Americans to make the kind of tough budget cuts their representatives in Washington lawmakers seem unwilling to tackle. Hoffman, a 21-year-old Virginian who works at a nonprofit, estimates her paycheck will be roughly $30 less this biweekly pay period, or about $780 annually, thanks to the end of a two-year cut on payroll taxes, which fund Social Security. The tax has risen back up to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent, costing someone making $50,000 annually about $1,000 per year and a household with two high-paid workers up to $4,500. Read More>>

America Chose Tyranny

2012-11-11T11:11:00.002-06:00

I have decided to finally give my opinion about the decision American voters made on November 6th. I have seen many political pundits give their opinions as to why Mitt Romney lost but I think they are looking only at surface issues. We have chosen tyranny and rejected liberty but it is much deeper than that.

I have always heard that we are a center-right country but it is quite obvious that is no longer true. This has become a leftist nation and I don't believe our best days are still ahead but instead, I see that our demise has been firmly set in stone.

Because of the re-election of Barack Obama his signature assault on our nation, ObamaCare, will be embedded and cemented in our culture. We will finally have socialized medicine after 100 years of Progressives fighting for it and we will suffer dearly once it is completely implemented. Also, Obama's "fundamental transformation" of America will be completed after eight years in office. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

The people in the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington have voted to approve same sex marriage. Every time the people have been allowed to vote about same sex marriage, instead of state legislatures forcing it down their throats, it has been rejected until this week. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Republicans are running scared because they failed to gain votes from Hispanics, Latinos, Mexicans, etc., and have decided it is time to open our borders to one and all so they can garner more votes in future elections. Rush Limbaugh looked at the elections after Ronald Reagan approved amnesty in 1986 and found some interesting information: "Ronaldus Magnus passes amnesty, Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986. Ronald Reagan in 1984 got 37% of the Hispanic vote. So the Republican Party getting 37% of the Hispanic vote when Reagan signs amnesty. George H. W. Bush, Bush 41, runs for office in 1988, two years after Simpson-Mazzoli. Two years after the Republican Party is seen as heroically granting amnesty, what percentage of the Hispanic vote do you think that George H. W. Bush got two years after Reagan passed amnesty? Thirty percent. The Republican Party lost 7% of the Hispanic vote after passing amnesty." The Republicans are believing a lie. It turns out that "it is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation."

There was a Mexican caller on Limbaugh's program Friday that verified... "unfortunately the majority of the Mexican people that come over to the United States, they're already marginalized in their own country. They don't have very much education and they believe that the government is the only source of wealth." (emphasis mine)

The Republicans are willing to throw out their principles and move to the left in order to buy votes they will never get. We may get open borders, more lawlessness, more weakening of our culture and a more divided America because of this lie and the cowardice of Republicans but the GOP will get something else. They will never win another nationwide election because 12-20 million illegals that receive amnesty will vote for the government to support them and that means they will continue to vote Democrat. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Have you thought about the Supreme Court? Justices Scalia and Kennedy are 76 and Justice Thomas is 64. If anything (God forbid!) happens to any or all of these men, Obama will appoint more replacements and the court will go hard left. Our Constitution will be re-written for a generation or longer without properly amending it. But that is not the worst thing from this election.

Do you remember when the Democrats dropped God and pro-Israel language from their platform during their convention, last September, and tried to have it reinstated by a floor vote? The delegates overwhelmingly voted "NO!" but the chair declared they had voted yes! From that point on, we knew the Democrats, as a party, rejected God and are anti-Semitic. Of course, we should have known since Roe v Wade that Democrats reject God.

Since becoming a Christian, I have known for many years that the United States of America is not mentioned in Bible prophecy. Interesting, isn't it? Why would the world's most prominent super power, the largest economic power, the most prosperous and wealthy nation in the history of man be ignored in end times prophecy? The three main possibilities might be: God's prophecies concern Israel so only the nations in close proximity to it are mentioned, the US has become a destitute, third world country by the time God's prophecies are fulfilled or the US has been destroyed by a nuclear attack. Of course, there could be a combination of two or more of these.

Contrary to popular belief, our nation was founded by godly and moral men who lived according to Biblical principles and I believe the Constitution of the United States was inspired by God. The founders prayed together at the Constitutional Convention asking for the Lord's guidance in their endeavors. The first textbook used in our schools (from the 1700s to the early 1900s) was the New England Primer that used scripture to teach children morals, ethics, scruples and how to live a godly life. Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary used scripture to define words of the English language. Webster once wrote:

All of the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from them despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

And he also wrote:

The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions.

Ours was once a Christian nation and God blessed us with liberty and prosperity for many generations. However, throughout the last generation or two we have grown cold to the Lord but I thought there was a majority of Americans that still believed in God and welcomed him in our country.

On November 6th, I was proven wrong. A majority of Americans voted to be ruled by a party that rejects God and has no desire to continue a close relationship with the State of Israel. Obama voters think his re-election means Israel will soon be gone (graphic language warning!) and even Israel expects the US to abandon them because of the election outcome.

The Democrat party's rejection of God is the worst thing that has come from the election and we will suffer from this choice. I am not saying that every Democrat is godless but I am saying a majority of the delegates at their convention loudly voted against putting God and pro-Israel language back in their platform after it had been removed. Genesis 12:2-4 speaks of God's feelings about nations that bless or curse Israel and the reaction he will have.

I grew up in Indianapolis, Indiana and I remember The Indianapolis Star's masthead had the following scripture quote: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. I seriously doubt if that newspaper still has that scripture on the front page. We continue to remove God from the public square, to our own detriment, as we shun our Christian heritage and beliefs.

With the majority of voters choosing the Democrat party for two thirds of our national government, the approval of same sex marriage by three states, the change of our culture from work to welfare, the continuing irresponsibility of our government's immoral spending of money we do not have and never will have, as a majority, we have rejected God, his Word, his principles and his precepts. The consequences will be grave.

We can still choose to serve God as individuals and trust in him for our individual salvation even as our country is slowly destroyed around us. My advice is to repent, let Jesus change your heart and your life as you serve him. Jesus is our only hope now and forever. There is no politician, no election and no government that can help us.

I have spent three years and countless hours contributing to this blog because I was hoping in my own small way to make a difference. Instead, I have allowed my relationship with Jesus to suffer and I have been deeply entrenched in the slime of American politics on almost a daily basis. I had planned for this to be my last post but Michael, the founder of Republic Heritage, has asked me to reconsider and suggested that I change the tone of this blog from politics to Christian outreach. At this point I'm undecided.

There is a Christian song that has this chorus:

When mountains fall, I'll stand
By the Power of Your Hand
And in Your Heart of Hearts, I'll dwell
That my soul knows very well.

I believe the mountains that have held America up are about to fall. Please, let the power of God's hand keep you standing.

Reggie
11/11/2012

Bigger, Better America

2012-11-06T04:37:00.001-06:00

YouTube description: The differences between Mitt Romney and President Obama are clear. He says it has to be this way. Mitt Romney says it can't stay this way. President Obama is hoping Americans settle, but Americans don't settle. We build. We aspire.

Red Rocks

YouTube description: Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan took to Colorado to spread their message of creating good jobs and getting our economy going again.

Romney Is What the Country Needs Right Now

2012-11-06T04:37:00.000-06:00

Ann Coulter

The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of Obamacare.

If Obamacare is not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare -- to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.

There won't be one moment marking the end of America. Everything will just gradually get worse, like trains and the tax code, until a bustling, prosperous nation is as distant a memory as pleasurable train travel and one-page tax returns.

The reason we have Obamacare is not because the public was clamoring for the federal government to take over health care. It's because the Democrats had 60 senators. In the frozen ideology of the left, it doesn't matter if anyone wants government health care.

Democrats had been waiting around for 50 years to win huge majorities in the House and Senate and the presidency, so they could check off this box on "FDR's Unfinished Business."

Unlike all other major legislation in the nation's history, Obamacare was passed exclusively by one party that had just won an aberrationally large majority in Congress. Not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for it.

Republicans have passed legislation on such partisan votes, too, but never something that would fundamentally change the lives of every living American. Nationalizing one-sixth of the economy is not the kind of thing that should be passed by one party sneering, "Ha, ha -- we have 60 votes!"

As soon as all Americans have been thrown off their employer-provided insurance plans and are forced to start depending on the government for health care, Republicans will never be able to repeal it.

The private insurance market will be gone. Most Americans won't be able to conceive of getting health care that doesn't come from the government -- just as people in the Soviet Union couldn't imagine how they'd get bread if the government didn't provide it.

(Also similar to Communist systems, you'll have to know someone in power to get decent medical care.)

A powerful health care Leviathan will arise, composed of self-paced, well-pensioned, unionized government workers who will manage our health care from 10 a.m.-3 p.m., except federal holidays, sick days, mental health days and in bad weather. (The day after Hurricane Sandy, everything was open on the mostly unaffected Upper East Side of New York -- but not the post office.)

Read the rest of the column

One Last Chance to Kill Obamacare

2012-11-06T04:36:00.002-06:00

The only remaining hope of finally killing this monster lies in a Romney victory.

Barack Obama's promise to cure the ills of our health care system was obviously an important factor in his 2008 victory over John McCain as well as that year's Democrat gains in the House and Senate. Most of the electorate favored some legislation that would slow rising medical costs and increase access to care. However, when Obamacare finally slogged out of the congressional slough, it was greeted with consternation and outrage. Instead of the reform they were promised, the voters got a grotesque government behemoth reeking of corruption. They were not amused. They appeared en masse at town hall meetings to harangue their representatives, organized a series of public protests and finally marched on Washington.

All for naught, of course. The President and his congressional accomplices ignored the voters, patronizing them with the assurance that they would learn to love "reform" once they understood it. But the electorate still regards the thing with fear and loathing. A recent Rasmussen survey showed that 54% of likely voters favor repeal, the precise percentage who opposed the law when it passed. Nonetheless, if the President is re-elected, ObamaCare will become a permanent feature of the entitlement landscape. The Supreme Court has demonstrated that it won't protect us from the beast's depredations, and a high priority of a second Obama term will be full implementation of his most important domestic "achievement."

The only way to kill this monster is full repeal. And, for all intents and purposes, tomorrow offers the last chance to set that process in motion. The need to take advantage of this opportunity is made manifest by a review of what the President and the Democrat Congress wrought in the name of "reform." It isn't possible to cover all of Obamacare's flaws in one column, but the point can be made by a brief summary of its worst provisions. Among these are mandates that restrict individual liberty and freedom of conscience, tax increases totaling more than $800 billion, the creation of perverse economic incentives that will kill millions of jobs, and the creation of a rationing board whose power will be virtually unchecked.

Obamacare contains a variety of arbitrary and harmful mandates, including one that requires insurance companies to provide health policies that meet federally defined "minimum standards." This is a very bad idea with a long track record of driving insurance premiums up. But the law's most egregious mandates are the "minimum coverage provision" that requires you to buy health coverage regardless of your desire or need to do so, and the HHS contraception mandate that requires all employers -- including Catholic hospitals and universities -- to provide employees coverage for abortion pills, contraceptives, and sterilization procedures. Combined, these mandates constitute a brazen assault on our most basic liberties.

The "minimum coverage provision," more commonly known as the individual mandate, forces you to buy a service from a private company approved by the government. This is the first time in the history of the republic that such a law has been passed by Congress. And, contrary to the claims of its supporters, it isn't comparable to state laws requiring drivers to buy auto insurance. Such requirements are imposed as a condition of owning and operating a large and dangerous machine. You can avoid those mandates by utilizing public transportation. The individual insurance mandate, on the other hand, is imposed on you merely because you exist. Thus, you can only avoid it by dying or paying a fine to the government.

Read the full article

And there is this...

Politico: Post-election flood of ‘Obamacare’ rules expected

The Washington Times: Medicare rationing under Obamacare has started already

Falling on Principle

2012-11-06T04:36:00.001-06:00

And there is this...

The Washington Times: Libertarian Johnson expects to make impact in Ohio, Colorado

What President Obama really said in that '60 Minutes' interview about Benghazi

2012-11-06T04:36:00.000-06:00

Bret Baier

ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 "60 Minutes" interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.

In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate. Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama -- the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: "When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say."

Romney pounced, saying, "There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people."

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. "The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror... And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president. That's not what I do as commander in chief."

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning ...

Read the full article

'Our Country’s Future is in our Hands'

2012-11-05T10:26:00.003-06:00

This is the entire Facebook post from Sarah Palin yesterday. I will let her have the last word on Republic Heritage before election day. - Reggie

Sarah Palin looking at our Constitution

This Tuesday our country’s future is in our hands.

What’s past is prologue. We know what we will get from a second Obama term because we’ve all endured his first term. We know how well he kept his 2008 campaign promises. Do we really believe he’ll keep his 2012 promises?

Do we believe the word of a man who promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then slammed the middle class with a massive tax hike in the form of Obamacare (and don’t forget that his own lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is a tax)?

Do we really believe he won’t raise taxes even more on every American in order to pay for his wasteful spending and his crony capitalism?

Do we believe that the same president who increased the debt in his first term by more than all the first 41 presidents combined will suddenly decide to cut the deficit in his second term?

Do we believe that the president whose reckless spending led us to the first credit rating downgrade in our nation’s history will suddenly become a responsible fiscal manager if we reelect him?

Do we really believe that a president who promised us that job creation was his number one priority despite month after month of dismal job numbers now has a credible “plan” for the job growth that eluded him for the past four years?

Do we believe that the same president who shut down the Keystone Pipeline and blocks domestic oil and natural gas development at every turn is somehow going to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and lead us to energy independence?

Do we really believe that our country’s national security is safe in the hands of a president whose administration denied security and assistance to our consulate under attack on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on America, and then blamed that consulate attack and the death of our ambassador on a “spontaneous” protest over an obscure YouTube video despite all the real time evidence to the contrary?

Do we believe that a president who was caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president that he would have “more flexibility” after his reelection is being honest about his plans for a second term?

We know what we will get from a second Obama term. We will get the same failed policies. We will get Obamacare locked into law without any chance of undoing this dangerous legislation and any chance to seek real patient-centered health care reform. We will get a debt crisis. We will get more inflation and higher gas prices. We will get tax increases. We will get fewer jobs. We will get more small businesses collapsing under the weight of higher taxes and unfair regulation. We will get more corruption and crony capitalism favoring the Obama administration’s friends. We will get less domestic energy development and increased dependence on terrorist sponsoring foreign regimes for our energy needs. We will get a “blame America first” foreign policy that bows to our enemies and snubs our friends like Israel and leaves America and the world less safe. We will get less opportunity and security for ourselves and for our children.

In 2008, Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. And for all his failures and broken promises, that’s the one thing he has delivered on. He’s transformed us from a nation of hope to one of anxiety. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Tuesday is our chance to turn things around.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have offered a credible alternative to Barack Obama’s failed policies. Governor Romney understands how the free market works. His pro-growth economic policies will benefit all Americans. He has promised to move us toward energy independence, deficit reduction, and responsible entitlement reform that honors our commitment to our seniors and keeps faith with future generations. Governor Romney deserves a chance to lead. President Obama had his chance. He’s failed, and we can’t afford to go backwards.

We must also remember the many good Republican candidates who are running for the House and Senate this year. They deserve our support as well. If you are like me, you have watched these campaigns, learned about the candidates, and know where they stand despite the skewed lens of a partisan media bent on keeping liberal leadership in power. We saw the destruction a Democrat controlled White House, House, and Senate brought us after the 2008 election. Our country can’t afford that again. Your vote is the only safeguard against that happening.

On Tuesday, please vote for Governor Mitt Romney and the commonsense conservatives running for office in your states.

Voting is our duty and our right. We must never forget the immense sacrifices generations of Americans, including our brave men and women in uniform today, have made to give us this right. And we must never forget the duty we owe to generations of Americans yet to be born to exercise our right to vote prudently. The White House and control of the Senate is in the balance in this election, and every vote will count.

I firmly believe it is our responsibility to restore this country and secure the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children, just as it was secured for us. This is our sacred duty to the past and to the future. We will succeed in this so help us God.

God bless you and God bless America.

With an Alaskan heart,

Sarah Palin