Infamous Late Term Abortion Doctor "Tiller the Baby Killer" Shot and Killed

Within the last few hours, news has broke that the nationally famous Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed outside of the Reformation Lutheran Church. Dr. Tiller has been a common name around the abortion debate for decades as he is one of the only late term abortion providers in the United States. On his very own website, Dr. Tiller's practice states:

"We have an unparalleled record of safety in late abortion services and we have more experience in late abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else currently practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Australia."

Tiller's private practice

In the past, Tiller's office has been protested, prayed upon, and even bombed in 1985. Tiller was even shot in both of his arms by a protester in 1993. While he has always been seen as an "evil man" by the strong pro-life advocacy groups, Dr. Tiller's name became famous a few weeks after Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th President of The United States.

As Obama began to fill his cabinet of secretaries, his nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius (former Kansas governor), came under heavy fire from conservatives for her shady dealings with a Wichita, Kansas abortion provider. That's right, your HHS Secretary and Dr. Tiller have a little more than state residency in common. In fact they are great friends. In 2005, Sibelius drew great amounts of criticism from her constituents after she hosted a reception in Dr. Tiller's honor at her very own taxpayer-paid home known as Cedar Crest.

Further investigation found that Dr. Tiller was a heavy financial donor to Sibelius' gubernatorial campaigns along with Planned Parenthood. Under Kathleen Sibelius' governorship, Kansas voters and congressmen alike brought forth anti-abortion legislation and more strict regulations on abortion practices. Despite the voice of the people, Sibelius vetoed every motion for abortion regulations that came across her desk. Anti-abortion legislation was vetoed by Sibelius in 2003, 2005, 2006, and then in 2008 shortly before the president promoted her to run the Health and Human Services Department.

George and Jeanne Tiller pose with Governor Sibelius at a party in Tiller's honor at the governor's mansion.

In the coming days, I anticipate liberal pundits to blame Tiller's murder on the Right-wing voices such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbough or even Bill O'Reilly who coined the term, "Tiller the Baby Killer." Some right winged extremists will even say, "Good for the shooter. This guy deserved to die." I say it's sad (and wrong) when anyone's life is stripped from them before their true time has come whether it is the thousands of third-trimester babies that Tiller aborted or George Tiller himself.

The bigger picture here goes back to the government and the role it should play in its service to the people it should be serving. A recent Gallop poll showed that for the first time in its keeping records, the nation more identifies themselves as pro-life (shown below).


George Tiller's murder should not to be seen as an isolated incident. As the government continues to go against the desires of those who put them in power, Incidents like this will continue. Politicians have the power to make changes in the way our country is run and this power allows for swift and peaceful alterations in American policy. On the other hand, when politicians ignore the voice of their constituents to such an extreme degree, citizens often find there to be no other choice than to take the law into their own hands. When this happens, there is not peace, but often violent and aggressive ramifications because there is no other way for the common man to make their voice, and the voice of the majority in this case, heard.

The dissenting views of the early colonials caused them to break away from Great Britain and declare their separation. I believe this excerpt taken from the Declaration of Independence is a prophecy of what's to come if the politicians don't start listening to those who elected them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Kathleen Sibelius being sworn in as Health and Human Services Secretary

The Real Water Torture

Who is torturing who? Pelosi to the American people.

A quick look at Obama's "budget cuts"

Fiscally conservative American's have been up in arms about the unimaginable budget Obama has brought with him into the white house. A few hundred billion here, a couple trillion there, fifty-something Billion for 'Motor City,' yet a good portion of Americans have no idea what that means. Over the past few weeks though, conservative voices have spoken out against the president's outrageous breach into the private sector of business. To counteract the dissent, President Obama has announced that he will cut a whopping 100 million dollars from his budget. Still, these large numbers are hard for people to grasp. Somebody put this video together to help us understand what it means to take 100 million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget.

Is This the Content of Character Dr. King Spoke of?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

It was August 28, 1963 and Dr. King was standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after a civil rights march on Washington D.C. SomEdite estimates put the crowd at 300,000 people deep.

Dr. King was not looking for a head start over the white man, nor was he looking to denigrate the whites who had so mistreated African Americans in early America up until the outlawing of segregation. Martin Luther King wanted nothing but the true equality for each and every man. "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." In saying this, Dr. King was referring to the Declaration of Independence in which John Hancock scripted the terms for which the colonials felt it necessary to part themselves from the tyrannical fist of Great Britain.

John Hancock wrote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

In context, Hancock's outline of human rights stemmed from John Locke's writings of "Natural Rights." In the 17th century, before America had declared it's independence, Locke argued that "all men were born into a state of nature where he was rational, tolerant, and happy. In this original existence man was entitled to enjoy the rights of life, liberty and property." In adopting Locke's philosophies, Hancock replaced "property" with "the pursuit of happiness," as he, and the founding fathers, believed America to be a place where anyone can do anything. Obviously, some early Americans were hypocritical by reaping the benefits of American freedom but also enslaving other humans, thus denying their rights, but in its perfect form, the American dream was meant for all.

The reason I bring up the issue of equality through the eyes of one of the greatest civil rights leading in American history is because that very idea that Dr. King fought for is under attack. In was a dark time for America when the people lived under segregation laws, yet the natural rights of man prevailed in abolishing such laws. Now, nearly 36 years after Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of equality among all men, President Obama has nominated a racially biased woman to take over the vacant seat of the highest court in all of the land.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"
- Sonia Sotomayor

Obama 's Historic Supreme Court Nominee: A racially biased woman on a mission

Once again, our wise and elegant president has made history. One May 1, 2009, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the post after nearly 19 years of service. When Justice Souter leaves the court at the end of this term, it will be President Obama's job to fill the seat and he has already taken the first step in doing so. Today, the president announced his nomination for the successor to the open seat, Sonia Sotomayor. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will be the first Latina and the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

In the increasingly PC (politically correct) United States, its almost like we have to promote minorities on the basis of racial and gender equality alone. What happened to the true equality of opportunity? The equality my father meant when he said, "When you grow up, if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want," no longer exists. Sotomayor once said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” If you cannot see the blatant racism in that statement, you are looking through a prism more clouded than Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” glasses.

Now before you go off and call me a racist for objecting to the nomination of the first Latina Supreme Court justice, you have to look at the record of Judge Sotomayor. As a judge on the second circuit court of appeals, Sotomayor has taken several stances that could easily be considered racially motivated.

In one case, Ricci v. DeStefano, a group of firefighters were suing for reverse racial discrimination. The city announced months in advance that they would give a test and the highest scorers would receive a substantial raise. When the results were tallied the city decided to throw out the test because "too many whites" were in the top scoring bracket and the group of firefighters who would receive the raises were not racially diverse enough. Because of this, they city decided that nobody would receive the performance based raise. As you can imagine, the firefighters hired an attorney and sued the city. As a high profile case, it eventually landed in front of Judge Sotomayor herself. Instead of hearing the case, and making a ruling, she merely dismissed it. In response to Sotomayor's lack of respect for true equality, another judge on the court of appeals wrote:

"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
-Judge Jose Cabranes

This case has since been picked up by the U.S. Supreme Court and is expecting a ruling by the end of June. Based on Sotomayor's past actions though, there is no doubt that she would not see any importance in even looking into this case.

This is not an isolated incident either. Since being a member of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 6 of Sotomayor's rulings have gone on to the Supreme Court. Of the six, five of her decisions were overturned. In the sixth case, the courts strongly disagreed with Sotomayor's reasoning. Is this really the best choice for the open Justice seat?

The answer is easy. No, Sonia Sotomayor is in no way the best choice to take over for David Souter. Any reasonable human being who values the liberties America was founded one would argue that the best man for the job should get the job, especially when dealing with the highest court in the United States department of Justice. I feel that the President has severely dropped the ball on this rare opportunity he has to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice.

While I think the President has made a horrible mistake, he thinks he has not. In fact, Obama may have just killed 3 or 4 birds with one stone. Not only has he taken the first steps towards filling the seat, but he has also thrown a bone to the Hispanic community, the women of the country, and the hardcore progressives who are trying to drag him even further to the left. I can just see it now, “This should get George Sorros and Keith Olberman to shut up for a while.”

The one thing you cannot argue is that President Obama has a monumentally flawed view of the role a Supreme Court Justice. When asked about his idea of a nominee earlier in the month, the President said this:

"I’m looking for someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or a footnote in a case book. It is about how our laws affect the daily realities in people’s lives. I hope [they] will see the quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles is an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Empathy? Hopes and Struggles?

Since when did our laws have an empathy clause? In short, they never have and they never should. The founding fathers would have never wanted such a thing, and I’m sure if every American knew what this actually meant, the country as a whole would object to it as well.

Empathy should have no place in the Supreme Court as a tool to define a case or make a ruling. After all, how would you feel if you were the victim of a crime, yet the judge sided with the defendant based on the allegation that the defendant had lived a rough life?

Every Supreme Court Justice must take the oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Not only does the oath neglect to mention being sympathetic, but It actually hold the Justice to a promise of “[administering] justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Taken directly from the oath, how can Obama make a call to show empathy for ones hopes and struggles? You can guarantee that if I get a DUI, I would “hope” to get off with a warning, but does that make it the proper course of action? If I were a minority, Sonia Sotomayor might argue yes.

Finally, I would like to redirect you to the picture of the statue at the top which is the symbol of the U.S. Supreme Court. When you first looked at the picture, there is a good chance you overlooked one of the most important details of the statue. That important detail is that the female statue is wearing a blindfold across her eyes to symbolize the importance of equality in justice no matter who the issue involves. It doesn’t matter if you are black or white, male or female, equality granted by the constitution is guaranteed for all. Justice is, and should be, blind to race ethnicity and gender. If the Senate confirms Obama’s nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, they should also commission a sculptor to chip away the statue’s blindfold and replace it with wide eyes.