Copyright © 2012 Daniella Nicole

According to the Pro-choice crowd, a baby isn’t really a baby until it is born. Before then he or she is just a mass of cells and not a human being, though ‘it’ may be ‘human’ in the context that a flake of dandruff off a human’s head is ‘human’.

Though President Obama has publicly stated his support for abortion and Roe v. Wade, and his track record as a Senator shows he has been pro-choice (and was even “rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007”), the White House tour policy is a little different.

According to the Washington Times, the director of the visitor office at the White House (Ellie Schafer) stated in an email that she had

“received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born.”

“Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour,” the email stated. “It’s an easy process.”

Yup, you read that correctly. According to the security policy, the infant in-utero is actually counted as a ‘guest’ (or person) and is classed as a baby, not a fetus. A baby (in utero) therefore cannot be simply “a mass of cells” because that would make it like a plant or turkey sandwich and they don’t register those as ‘guests’.

This move by Obama’s White House is a huge slap in the face to the Pro-choice group to whom he has publicly shown support. What else is going on behind the backs of his supporters?

Image credit: Desiderius. Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_Echo.jpg

Copyright © 2012 Daniella Nicole

According to this piece on BuzzFeed, for just $3 you can enter to win an invite to the home of the perpetually single and singularly delusional  George Clooney in order to help raise funds for the re-election of the traitor-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama, who will also be in attendance.

If you are a hot model, perhaps you can win a shot at being Clooney’s next ex, too!

It’s a win-win situation, folks!

So, the question I, as a hot-blooded, single, Constitutional Conservative must ask myself is if it is worth the $3 price tag to get to tell both George Clooney and Obama that they are idiots.

*decisions, decisions*

The answer is a resounding ‘no’, because I would also have to let TSA feel me up first . . .and after my ‘outburst’, the Secret Service, later. And now we all know how much those Secret Service agents like playing with women!

I may be single, but I ain’t desperate. I’ll pass on the golden ticket and the golden opportunity to spout off and stand up for America. Sorry, folks. I’ll just have to do my part in some way that doesn’t involve giving government employees their jollies-like writing sarcastic blog posts. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Copyright © 2012 Daniella Nicole

A great deal has been made lately of stay-at-home-moms and their value. 

My understanding of the Women’s Liberation movement was that it was about women being able to choose their own path. They could choose to marry or not. They could choose to be a career woman, a stay-at-home mom or some combination of both. They could attend college, vocational school or none of the above. They could choose to have children or not. The whole point was that women have the right to choose their own fate; their own destiny; their own life-on their own terms-just as men had done for all time.

Fast forward to today when women who choose a more ‘traditional’ role are mocked, degraded, devalued and cast as stupid, lazy and somehow ‘less than’ women who ‘really work’.

As a woman who has worked in the home, been a stay-at-home-mom, juggled both and been a career woman with no children, I can tell you with some authority there is nothing more challenging for a woman to do than to be a mother and being a stay-at-home mom is far more work than any other ‘job’ out there.

That being said, all women have value and all choices are within our rights to choose. Don’t want kids? Don’t have them. It doesn’t make you ‘less’ of a woman. Want to stay-at-home to raise your family? Great! It doesn’t mean you have less value than the woman who chooses differently. Don’t want to ever marry? No one says you have to. As a single, you have just as much value as a human being as someone who is married.

When women attack other women over using their hard-won right to choose their own fate, they are undermining the whole point of Women’s Liberation. Either it was about the freedom to choose our own fate or it was about becoming a slave to another master dictating our life to us; this one telling us, again, that we have no value unless we do things one way only [ i.e. meet the new boss; same as the old boss].

So tell me, ladies, which was it? Freedom or slavery to a different master? What exactly was it that was fought for?

And yes, Billy-boy, we do get our [bleep] out of bed and the house at 7 a.m (usually far earlier) in bad weather to get our kids off to school (among other reasons) and we do have to put on a happy face all day for the sake of our families, and our own sanity. Oh, and Bill, we don’t get to clock out at 5 after a mere 8 hours-heck, our day is still going on into the wee hours only to start again when the rooster crows. You wouldn’t last one day in our shoes, so show some respect.

Image credit: ktowers/freerangestock.com

Live streaming by Ustream

Live Streaming by Ustream.TV

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole

A Fox News report revealed the plan ofLos Angeles law enforcement officers to begin ignoring current laws regarding impounding the vehicles of those drivers who are unlicensed. This move comes due to the fact that the majority of those who are being hit by this law are illegals and law enforcement does not want to inhibit the ability of them to get a job or continue to go to work.

This puts the L.A. Police Department in the position of not only violating their sworn oath to uphold the law, but it amounts to them aiding and abetting criminal behavior by:

Not arresting those in violation of the law for illegally driving; imposing legal consequence of vehicle impound.

Not arresting those in violation of the law by being here illegally.

Aiding those already in violation of the law by illegally being here in the further commission of crimes, namely illegally driving and illegally working here.

This action on the part of the L.A. Police Department is also discriminatory. There was no prior concern for the poor American citizens of the area-only those criminal, non-citizens of foreign birth.

Police Chief Charles Beck stated the action was to “level the playing field”, which is ludicrous given the fact that it is not his job to make the law, nor is it a level playing field when it gives the advantage to criminals over law-abiding citizens.

“Unlicensed to Kill”, a 2011 study conducted by AAA, found that illegals are “five times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes and more likely to flee the scene of a crime.” Not impounding the vehicles of those here illegally, who are illegally driving on our roads further endangers the rest of us. The police are sworn to serve and protect us.

It is not the purview of the L.A. Police Department to pick and choose who has to obey the law and who does not. The law applies equally to all and any officer not upholding his sworn duty to protect and serve should be summarily dismissed. With no benefits. It is not the job of law enforcement to make the law. It is their job to uphold it. Failure to do so is a crime, in and of itself, and appropriate action should be taken. Immediately. All those who are behind this move should be immediately removed from their position. This kind of gross violation of the law and discriminatory, dangerous action should not be tolerated.

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole

I have heard many people talk about how, if in the general election, their guy doesn’t get the nod, they will vote for a third party candidate or write in their guy, rather than vote for whomever gets the nod, because it’s a matter of “voting their conscience.”

Some have gone so far as to state it would “serve the country right” or “teach people a lesson” to split the vote and see Obama win, if their guy doesn’t get in. To them, this is “voting their conscience.”

I understand, very well, the deep moral and ethical drive to vote one’s conscience. I am a devout follower of the concept of standing up and speaking up for what is right, regardless of the consequences to self. I have repeatedly and consistently personally taken stances and spoken out about things that have subjected me to personal attacks, job losses, ridicule and loss of “popularity” in certain groups. Such results have neither silenced me nor deterred me. If anyone “gets it” about sticking with one’s conscience, it is me.

When I hear others talk about third party and write-in votes if their guy does not get the nod, it grieves me because I believe they have missed the point about voting one’s conscience.

For me, voting my conscience is not just about getting ‘my guy’ in; it is also about getting Obama out. I love this country and my fellow Americans. I do not believe there is any way this country and her people can survive four more years of Obama and his regime. Obama in office any longer will result in the further and possible irreparable destruction of all I hold dear –of all I risk everything to support, protect and defend in the ways in which I am able.

For me to vote third party or write-in “my guy” if he were not to get the nod would be me putting my personal pride ahead of my love for this country. I cannot and will not do that-my conscience will not allow me to do that. And that, my friends, is the true heart of the “voting one’s conscience” issue: what is the core of your conscience: personal pride (i.e. ego) or love of something greater?

I will fight with all I have and I will do all I can to get my guy to the point of getting the nod, but if he does not get it, I will stand united behind the man who does.

If I have to drain a bottle of Pepto, hold my nose and pull the lever for someone other than “my guy” in the general election in order to protect this country and keep Obama’s traitorous, treasonous, America-hating, socialistic hands off her and the Constitution I hold so very dear to me, you bet I am going to do it. I will unite behind whatever candidate gets the nod in order to serve the greater purpose and cause of saving this country.

And then, I will hold that man’s feet to the fire and put all the pressure I can on him to be the president he promised and that we need him to be. I would do the same to “my guy”, if he got in, too.

That is where my conscience leads me. Where does yours lead you?

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole

It has been throw-something-at-the-screen-while-yelling-profanities, mind-blowingly irritating that the GOP candidates regularly allow themselves to be sucked into the Left’s vortex of the ridiculous, like sheeple to the slaughter, by continually addressing the inane questions regarding complete non-issues such as contraception, religion and the Left’s clear hypocrisy on verbal assaults. Not only that, instead on focusing on the real enemy (Hint: he occupies the White House), they launch hypocritical attacks at one another. It makes a person reconsider their previous assumption of intelligence in said candidates.

Of all of them, Newt Gingrich has been the best at throwing the questions back at the media and then turning the topic back onto the relevant, but even he, especially as of late, has been getting sucked into the insanity.

Meanwhile, the GOP “establishment” continues to tout Romney as the one to back due to him being so “electable”. Obamacare and all of its fiscal ramifications are unquestionably among the key points in the race against Obama. With most Americans, including a high percentage of independent voters, being against at least a portion of Obamacare and Romney being behind the precursor to and model for Obamacare with his own Romneycare, how exactly does that make him “electable”? Romney has, for years, supported and defended Romneycare and even in debates, has stood behind it.

In addition to that epic fail in logic by the GOP, we have the fact the Romney is being touted as this country’s only chance at fiscal salvation. Such support even comes from the likes of Democrat-appeaser Majority House Leader Eric Cantor, who initiated the YouCut program which, overall, has proposed more in cuts and savings since its inception than Romney proposes, and is still coming up with new cuts.

The Chicago Tribune reported

“Mitt Romney is the only candidate in the race who has put forward a bold, pro-growth, pro-jobs plan for the future,” Cantor said. “He is the guy I believe that will be our nominee and we will have a clear choice as a country as far as the vision forward in growing this economy with Mitt’s plan versus that of the president’s record.”

Romney’s proposal closely resembles Obama’s bone tosses to the spineless GOP appeasers who sign on to his plans of minimalist cuts being enacted simultaneously with massive increases in spending and taxation. Between that and his defiant Romneycare stance (including pride in Obamacare being modeled after it-2009), tell me again how Romney is some financial savior to us all?

The over-the-cliff economy is at the heart of what ails this nation and without bold measures to fix it, we will be lost. We must address the biggest aspects of our failing economy, which does not occur in speeches, debates and interviews laden with pretty promises with no substance and misdirected candidates trying to score media points with zinger soundbites.

When we put our support behind any candidate, it then becomes our inherent responsibly to hold that candidate’s feet to the fire and make it clear to them we are watching them closely and holding them 100% accountable. We must all push our chosen candidates to get serious about the state of the union and stop playing the media’s games. We need strength, we need solutions and we need some basic common sense. We apparently must remind them in James Carville’s direct but poignant way: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

****************************************

Get Facebook Buttons

********************************************

Copyright © 2011 Daniella Nicole

The latest post from vlogger Wild Bill for America is titled Game Over, Atheists Lose.  The video was great, but it left me with questions regarding the ruling. I had not heard anything about such a case currently being in front of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

I did some checking and found that he is not the only person mentioning this landmark ruling. When did it happen? More searching revealed that almost 120 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that the United States is a Christian Nation.

The case is officially titled as HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S. 143 U.S. 457, 12 S. Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, Feb 29, 1892. The part that I have seen most cited from the ruling is

“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

In his video, Wild Bill quotes from the ruling regarding the “mountain of documentary evidence”

“They speak the voice of the entire people. This is a religious people. This is a Christian nation.”

A piece in the Washington Post written by Father Frank Pavone states that

Congress itself, in 1854, and the Supreme Court, in 1892, after a review of U.S. history, affirmed that ours is a Christian nation from its founding

A well-researched piece written by David Barton in Wallbuilders.com titled “Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?” clarifies the meaning of the term “Christian nation” by stating

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world.8

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

This explanation was expanded upon with the words of others, including Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield and Founding Father and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall.

That same article goes into great detail to cite numerous other instances in which presidents, Congress and others have all affirmed that the U.S. is a Christian nation and was founded as such.

Though President Barack Obama and his supporters often tout him as a Constitutional scholar, study of the history of how the Constitution came to be, which is what both Congress and the SCOTUS did before coming to their conclusions, clearly shows that the United States is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles.

When he repeatedly states otherwise or that the U.S. is no longer a Christian nation, he is in error. Further, his statement that America is a Muslim nation is in gross error as less than one percent of the population of the United States is Muslim, and again, the nation was founded on Christian principles, which are still evident in our laws and founding documents.

The laws of Islam and Sharia law, specifically, are a totalitarian system of government designed with rules for every aspect of the individual’s life. This is the polar opposite of a Constitutional Republic, which America is, in that a Constitutional Republic limits the power of the government while it also protects the individual’s inalienable rights from that same government.

So, almost 120 years ago the Supreme Court found that the United States was indeed a Christian nation and was founded specifically to be such. This, then, cannot be construed as anything other than simple statement of fact when uttered by any individual, nor should it be something to be viewed with disdain or embarrassment.

It is these very founding, Christian principles that helped drive this young country into so quickly becoming a world super power. It is these very Christian principles that earned us the reputation for being the most charitable nation in the world. We give more in money and other forms of aid than even the oil-rich countries of the Middle East. That little tidbit is a backed up by the World Giving Index published in 2011.

Being a Christian nation is not an insult to those of other religions. It is in fact because we are a Christian nation that people of other religions can freely live here and worship as they will. You can even freely live with no religion in your life. There are many countries in the world where that is not the case-that you must live according to one government-mandated set of religious principles or face dire consequences, including torture and death.

America is a Christian nation and that is a very good thing, indeed.

Catch The Fritch Show live every Sunday evening at 9 pm EST where you can call in with your thoughts or join in the fun in the chat room.

If you missed The Fritch Show, be sure to check out the podcast of his latest show or many of his archived shows.

****************************************

Get Facebook Buttons

****************************************

WASHINGTON (AP) — A resurgent Rick Santorum won Republican presidential caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado on Tuesday night, a stunning sweep that raised fresh questions about front-runner Mitt Romney’s appeal among the ardent conservatives at the core of the party’s political base.

Santorum triumphed, as

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/romney-looks-to-squelch-santorums-late-rise/#ixzz1lofecqqf ]]> http://fritchshow.com/2012/02/08/its-rick-santorum-in-a-blow-out/feed/ 0 http://fritchshow.com/2012/01/29/fritch-is-live-at-9pm-e-s-t-call-in-or-join-the-chat-room/ http://fritchshow.com/2012/01/29/fritch-is-live-at-9pm-e-s-t-call-in-or-join-the-chat-room/#comments Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:43:57 +0000 admin http://fritchshow.com/?p=3648 Call in now! 813-418-6100

Live streaming by Ustream

Live Streaming by Ustream.TV