‘God Has a Plan for Every Single Person’: Limbless Evangelist Explains How New Roe v Wade Film Fights Abortion Lies

‘God Has a Plan for Every Single Person’: Limbless Evangelist Explains How New Roe v Wade Film Fights Abortion Lies

04-02-2021Deborah Bunting

Share via facebook
Share via twitter
Share via email
Nick Vujicic, a Christian evangelist who was born with no limbs, greets a crowd of 25,000 young people at My Dinh national stadium in Hanoi, Vietnam. (AP Photo/Na Son Nguyen)

Nick Vujicic, a Christian evangelist who was born with no limbs, greets a crowd of 25,000 young people at My Dinh national stadium in Hanoi, Vietnam. (AP Photo/Na Son Nguyen)

At one time, Nick Vujicic thought his own life had no value and considered doing away with himself. Vujicic was born with no arms or legs, and life seemed overwhelmingly useless. But his faith in Jesus Christ and the support of his family got him to a new place. 

Today he is married, has four children, and speaks as an evangelist all over the world, proclaiming the Gospel and the key truth he has learned: regardless of what doctors say, God has a plan for the unborn.

He’s promoting a new pro-life “Roe v. Wade” movie with the same message of God’s plan for every life, and it’s set to hit screens today, on April 2nd.Related


New Hollywood Film Exposes the Lies and Deception Behind Controversial Roe v. Wade Case

Photo Credit: D Dipasupil/Getty Images

‘Witchcraft Is Very Real’: ‘Limbless Evangelist’ Nick Vujicic Responds to Fierce Reaction About Seeing Demons


Vujicic spoke with the Christian Post in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) premiere of the new movie, “Roe v Wade.” The film is the factual story behind what many see as the most controversial and divisive Supreme Court ruling ever. In Roe v Wade, the Court struck down existing state laws and made abortion legal nationwide. Since then, more than 60-million unborn children have been killed by abortion in the U.S.

“Many people have asked me, especially over the last 18 months, ‘What happened, what really happened in our country for it to be where it is?’ And I really believe that it started with the family,” Vujicic told CP. 

Vujicic also emphasized the importance of the church to make clear what the Scriptures say about human beings.

“We must hold on to what God has given us, the basics of what He’s given us in Scripture — that all of life has value, that all of life God can use for His purpose. And that even though we don’t get a miracle, we can still be one.”

Nick was born in 1982, and the fact that he had no arms or legs came as a complete surprise. No sonograms had indicated there was a problem.  

As a youngster, he was often depressed and lonely and saw no purpose for his life. But God showed him otherwise. Today, through his ministry Life Without Limbs, Nick has led a million people to faith in Jesus Christ. He says it all comes from acknowledging — no matter the circumstances — that God is the great lover of men and women and children, and that He always has a plan.

“You got to trust in God. And that’s the pinnacle and epiphany of faith — to understand that only God can do that,” Vujicic continued. “Only God can use the man without arms and legs to be His hands and feet and call him to stand in front of the gates of Hell and redirect traffic.” 

“When we stand in front of the gates of Hell and redirect traffic, that’s when we understand that what is for man impossible — it is possible with God!” 

***As certain voices are censored and free speech platforms shut down, be sure to sign up for CBN News emails and the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving news from a Christian Perspective.***

The movie “Roe v Wade” features top actors like Corbin Bernsen, Stacey Dash, Jon Voight, and John Schneider. The movie has had its own obstacles to overcome in getting to its premiere, according to CP, including Facebook banning their ads and losing cast members who opposed the film’s mission.  The mission, simply put, is to tell the facts behind the infamous Court case which, movie director Nick Loeb told Fox News host Tucker Carlson, include “the untold story of how people lied, how the media lied, and how the courts were manipulated” to legalize abortion nationwide.

Loeb wrote, produced, co-directs, and plays the key role of abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson in the film. He earlier told CBN News, “I was surprised that no one really had made a movie about the most famous court case in American history.”

As the film shows, Dr. Nathanson, along with pro-abortion allies, manipulated information and lied through polls to help make the country believe abortion was more popular with Americans than it really was.

That may have helped the Supreme Court justices turn from an early almost-tie vote to an ultimate 7-to-2 ruling to legalize abortion nationwide.

Nathanson, as shown in the movie, eventually has a change of heart, complete with grief and guilt over aborting his own child and some 70,000 others. 

Vujicic told KBTV the truth about Roe v Wade is a story that needs to be told, and he plans to do his part. “We really believe God called us to the platform and battlefield to righteously, humbly, but boldly and unapologetically, talk about the value of life.  To understand that God has a plan for every single person.”

After its world premiere at CPAC in Orlando last month, “Roe v. Wade” launches on many platforms on April 2nd.  But producers are happy to arrange special showings for groups like churches or parachurch organizations. For more information, go to the movie’s website.

March 26, 2021

Office of Senator Tom Carper, Delaware
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Carper,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster. 
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?


Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

Tyler Olson

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP)

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE - In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

I read this article about you:

Delaware, Maryland senators help sink bill to save babies born alive after abortion

By For The Dialog –   26 February 2019, 13:24  2144

WASHINGTON — The Senate in an evening vote Feb. 25 failed to advance a measure sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, to require that babies born alive after an abortion be given medical attention and “the same protection of law as any newborn.”

The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act failed in a 53-44 vote. Sixty votes were needed to end a filibuster and bring forward the measure, which Sasse’s press office said was co-sponsored by half the Senate. Among the 44 voting against the measure were Delaware’s Chris Coons and Tom Carper and Maryland’s Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen.

“I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether we’re OK with infanticide,” Sasse said ahead of the vote. “This language is blunt. I recognize that and it’s too blunt for many people in this body. But frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today. Infanticide is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about.”

Protecting babies who “are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion … is what this is about,” he said.

Kristan Hawkins, president for Students for Life of America, called Sasse’s bill “the bare minimum standard for valuing infant life, as everyone should be able to look at a baby born during an abortion and understand that a humane response is required.”

“Too many important votes are forgotten, but this one won’t be,” she said in a statement issued after the vote. “These kinds of tactics in which a win is a loss can disillusion voters, but allowing infants to die after being born alive will rally pro-life Americans when it counts.”

On Feb. 4, Sasse had called for unanimous consent on his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. “Everyone in the Senate ought to be able to say unequivocally that killing that little baby is wrong. This doesn’t take any political courage,” he said from the floor.

In response, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, blocked unanimous consent by objecting to the bill.

The next day the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities called it “unconscionable” that the U.S. Senate failed to “unanimously declare to the nation that infanticide is objectively wrong.”

Naumann
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)

“No newborn should be left to suffer or die without medical care. It is barbaric and merciless to leave these vulnerable infants without any care or rights,” Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, said in a Feb. 5 statement.

Senator I wanted to discuss abortion.

Francis Schaeffer shows the inconsistency of the pro choice views espoused by Justice Blackmun in his opinion in Roe v Wade:

Third, when the United States Supreme Court made its ruling about abortion on January 22, 1973, Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. The first section in his opinion was titled “Ancient Attitudes.” In it he referred back to the pre-Christian law. He said, “Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father’s right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion.” Thus, as his first point, Mr. Justice Blackmun based his opinion on the practice of pre-Christian Greek and Roman law. Most people who read this did not realize the logical result concerning babies after their birth. Roman law permitted not only abortion but also infanticide. As we think this over, we ask ourselves, “Now that this door is open, how long will it be before infanticide is socially accepted and perhaps legalized?”

(Page 319) 

Advocates of Infanticide

It frightens us when we see the medical profession
acquiesce to, if not lead in, a trend which in our
judgment will carry us to destruction.  The loss of
humanness shown in allowing malformed babies to
starve to death is not a thing of the future.  It is being
put forward as the accepted thing right now in many
quarters.  All that is left is for it to become totally
accepted and eventually, for economic reasons,
made mandatory by an increasingly authoritarian
government in an increasingly selfish society.

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system.  The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering.  I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.

In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.

In _Ideals of Life_, Millard S. Everett, who was
professor of philosophy and humanities at Oklahoma
A&M, writes,
My personal feeling– and I don’t ask anyone to
agree with me– is that eventually, when public
opinion is prepared for it, no child should be
admitted into the society of the living who
would be certain to suffer any social handicap–
for example, any physical or mental defect that
would prevent marriage or would make others
tolerate his company only from the sense of
mercy.
He adds, “This would imply not only eugenic
sterilization but also euthanasia due to accidents of
birth which cannot be foreseen.”44

Perhaps the paper most outspokenly advocating
infanticide was published in the prestigious
167-year-old _New England Journal of Medicine_.
In October 1973, Dr. Raymond S. Duff and Dr.
A.G.M. Campbell of the department of pediatrics at
Yale University School of Medicine wrote, “Moral
and Ethical Dilemmas in the Special-Care
Nursery.”45

Very few parents come of their own volition to a
physician and say, “My baby has a life not worthy to
be lived.”  Duff and Campbell say that the parents in
such a case are not in a condition to give “informed
consent” by themselves.  But any physician in the
emotional circumstances surrounding the birth of a
baby with any kind of a defect can, by innuendo if
not advice, prepare the family to make the decision
the physician wants them to make.  We do not
consider this “informed consent.”

Duff and Campbell acknowledge that the parents’
and …

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton FriedmanPresident Obamaspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton FriedmanPresident ObamaRonald Reaganspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President ObamaRonald Reaganspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obamaspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current EventsSpeaker of the House John Boehnerspending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: