Late term abortion to save a mother’s life is a fallacy.

I get so sick of hearing pro-choice advocates talk about how we need late term abortion in cases where a mother’s life may be in danger. As someone who has a disease where the farther I got into my pregnancies, my health was increasingly at risk, at NO POINT did I ever consider an ABORTION. After a certain period in my pregnancy any attempt to save my life (if necessary and it was) was called an EARLY INDUCTION.

The doctors didn’t need to KILL my babies in order to save MY LIFE.

If a mother’s life is truly in danger, the termination of the baby’s life isn’t the necessary procedure to save hers; the removal of the baby from her body is.  And if that becomes necessary, why wouldn’t we try to save that potentially viable child’s life?

Why is this even a question?

Why does the answer have to be the baby must die?

So my question is: Why are we, as conservatives, not saying this? Why are we allowing the left to claim that late term abortion is necessary and that we must KILL the child in order for the mother to live.  Why are we not saying that after a particular point in a pregnancy, it’s incumbent upon us, as a DECENT and MORAL society to try to save BOTH lives?

Think about it. How many babies are born prematurely and live healthy productive lives after they come home from the hospital?  Thousands.

As a woman who delivered all of her babies early in order to prevent further deterioration of my health, I can’t imagine why any woman wouldn’t at least TRY to save her unborn child’s life.  Maybe the baby wouldn’t survive on it’s own.  Maybe it couldn’t be saved…but at least it was given a chance.  

We need to get real and start being honest about this subject.  There is a VAST difference between terminating your pregnancy at the very beginning stages and terminating it when you have had time to bond and feel it moving in your body.

At 25 weeks+ gestationally a fetus is not a glob of cells.  It’s not some inanimate object that doesn’t feel pain.  It’s a living growing human being. And if you kill  it before you even start the induction process you are robbing that child of it’s right to life.

If you kill it after it’s been born that’s evil.

No matter how much you try to paint it as a choice issue…it’s not.  It’s MURDER plain and simple.

Cindy Chafian-Founder/CEO



Background checks are a Trojan horse to complete gun control…and Republicans are allowing it to happen.


“I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control,” Senator Pat Toomey (R) PA said during a press conference at the Capitol. “I think it’s commonsense. If you pass a criminal background check, you get to buy a gun. No problem. It’s the people who fail a criminal or mental health background that we don’t want to have a gun.”


Sounds peachy, right?  Easy peasy…as long as you pass a background check you’re good to go.  The government will allow you exercise your God given right of self-protection.  (Isn’t that so nice of them?!?)


One problem…who’s making the rules for the background checks and are you missing the not so subtle MENTAL HEALTH portion of it?


Of course, it sounds logical that anyone with a history of extreme mental illness wouldn’t be allowed to own a weapon.  Because to most rational law abiding citizens, we think of the types of mental illness that will exclude you from owning a weapon will be the ones that are truly dangerous.


Sociopaths, schizophrenics, truly mentally unstable people who are unable to differentiate between what’s acceptable behavior and what’s not. Of course we want to keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS and MAD MEN like Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes or anyone else who are truly mad.  But would background checks have stopped them?  Doubtful and any background checks that might truly stop them will also prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their God given rights.


But what we’re failing to recognize is that the definition of these “mental health” background requirements haven’t been defined are often not limited to the truly mentally unstable.


Questions that American’s need to ask are what is the extent of the mental health background check? What are its limitations?  Will they apply to households or the person who specifically had to deal with the mental illness.


If we’re talking about people who are genuinely ill, then of course, no one thinks that person should be able to own a weapon.  But will it apply to the FAMILY MEMBERS who share a household with that person, as would have been the case with Adam Lanza’s mother.  SHE wasn’t mentally ill…HE WAS.  Do these requirements prevent family members from owning weapons simply because someone close to them is sick?


What about a woman who had just had a baby and is dealing with post-partum depression?  Her doctor prescribes a mood stabilizer to help her get through that period of adjustment.  Technically, that’s a mental disorder.  Will SHE be denied her 2nd Amendment rights because of this temporary state?  What about her husband?  Will he as well, simply because he shares a household with a person with a history of mental illness?


What about members of our military who often have a difficult time dealing with the traumatic situations they endure while serving our country?  If they seek help for PTSD will they be classified as mentally unstable and denied their rights?


If this is the case, then it’s our opinion that not only will this prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, it will also deter many people from seeking care for mental health issues when they truly need help simply because they don’t want their rights taken away.  So you run the risk of making the problem of those with mental health issues even worse because they won’t seek help out of fear of having their medical files flagged.   So we end up with MORE cases of people refusing to seek care for their mental health, which leads to a lack of stability, which can ultimately lead to a very bad situation.


So you defeat the purpose of having these checks in place.


Additionally, with the prevalence of mental health struggles in society today, it’s very rare to find a household where no one in the home has gone through a period of struggles where they sought help.  If these background checks are to exclude all members of a household where someone has dealt with mental illness, then gun control has just been implemented because NO ONE will be allowed to obtain weapons.


If the law requiring background checks is allowed to pass the House, then Progressive democrats just won.  Our 2nd Amendment rights will be stripped and law abiding citizens will not be allowed to defend themselves not only from criminals who will stop at nothing to victimize society, but we will also be defenseless against a tyrannical government who imposes their will on the people of a nation regardless of what those citizens want.


This has happened many times over the course of history.  It doesn’t end well for anyone who opposes the government.

“Progressive” Planned Parenthood lobbyist argues for post birth abortion

The video below is a perfect example of why many Americans are against Planned Parenthood.

This is from a hearing in the Florida legislature regarding a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to a newborn that survives an abortion.

The Planned Parenthood lobbyist will never come out and say that that child, who has survived the attempted abortion, deserves to live.  Instead she says that their concerns are “logistical issues”.  Really?

This is simply ridiculous and an obvious avoidance on her part to admit that which Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to publicly admit…their position is that that baby should die.

Even in the most rural areas, doctors are trained to save lives.  To say that they won’t support it because it’s an issue of logistics is not only a lie, it’s a disgusting attitude to have toward an innocent child fighting for life.

You see, this is the dark underside of the abortion world that no one, certainly not the reps from Planned Parenthood or any far left women’s groups, want anyone to know about.  They like to act like a woman’s right to choose is only about abortion in the earliest stages of a pregnancy.  That’s it’s all about empowering women and a right to the decisions about her body.  They don’t like to talk about the fact that they think abortion should be available to women whenever then want it…at any stage.  

Nearly half of Americans oppose abortion. The majority of the other half think there should be limitations. Most opposition to abortion stems from the very thing this Planned Parenthood lobbyist is fighting for.  Most level headed Americans don’t think that abortion should be available (short of a life-threatening situation with the mother) after the fetal heartbeat can be detected or the end of the first trimester.  They also don’t think that minors should be to obtain an abortion without their parents consent.  Sadly, the incredibly loud vocal MINORITY are the ones making the most noise so all we hear is their voice—and it’s not even an honest voice.

If being “progressive” means killing babies who are fighting for their life or allowing minors who can’t even take an aspirin at school with permission to obtain a potentially life threatening surgical procedure without their parents even knowing about it, then no thank you.  

This doesn’t sound “progressive” at all…it sounds evil, disgusting and dangerous.

For more information on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act click here.

For information about President Obama’s views on BAIPA, click here.

For more information about abortion accessibility to minors  in your state click here.


The Mommy Lobby is a non-profit group dedicated to keeping moms, who are busy raising their kids, active and engaged about the issues that impact them and their families.

You can find us at

Facebook:  The Mommy Lobby

Twitter: The Mommy Lobby

Affordable Health Care Act program encourages teens to share their sex stories

bedsiderJust when you think that things can’t get any worse, you find out you’re wrong…VERY WRONG.

We’ve come a long way from the sex ed classes we all probably took in middle school that taught us about our bodies functionality.  What our kids are exposed to now is more like a how to book on everything that most of us probably learned WELL into adulthood.  

We recently learned that the Obama administration has allocated millions of dollars in order to implement PREP in local high schools in various states.  (PREP stands for Personal Responsibility Education Program).

 But this particular program is sure to raise the ire of most parents…and for those it doesn’t we have to ask WTH?

Watch this…but not around young ears:

This is a video from the site which is a primary link from the PREP website. It’s about on par with Penthouse Forum and our kids are being encouraged with our tax dollars to download the app and share.  

Whatever happened to telling our kids to WAIT UNTIL MARRIAGE for sex? Or if the don’t want to wait until marriage, is it so wrong to ask them to at least wait until they’re adults and can deal with the responsibilities that come from sexual activity.

We encourage all of you to take some time to familiarize yourself with these pages to fully understand just what our kids are being taught as acceptable and normal.

We’ve gone down a very ugly path in this country regarding sex and what’s normal and acceptable within the confines of a civilized society.  What’s up is down and what’s wrong is right.  Isn’t is time we start to get back to the traditional ideas about maturity and sex instead of teaching our kids that they can have whatever they want, whenever they want and that their actions have no longstanding repercussions?  This is simply not the truth and if we continue down this “no limitations on our desires” attitudes, we, as a society will suffer for it even more than we have.

If it could happen to Rome, what makes us think it can’t happen here?

Program information for PREP as implemented via Affordable Health Care Act can be found here.

Grantees of PREP can be found here.

What can you do?

Share this story.

Get involved.  Become a member and be the first to get our alerts. Sign up here!

Contact your elected officials and demand that programs like this be defunded.  THIS is NOT the type of thing that our tax dollars should be paying for. 

Donate to our efforts to find and fight things like this!  We do the research that keeps busy moms and dads informed!  

We can’t do what we do without your support!  

Please click here or on the thumbs up image below to make a donation to help our efforts!  


Obamacare Funnels $75 Million to Planned Parenthood to Push Sex on Kids

From By Paul Rondeau

While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House, President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.

This is not your grandmother’s sex education about how things work and what can go “wrong.” In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP): Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP, which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style “comprehensive” sex ed programs where no type of sex is wrong and the only sexual behavior PP considers “unsafe” is becoming pregnant.

More than one-fourth of the funds ‒ $20 million ‒ has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates, operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health, to implement HHS’s TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites. In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate.

PP is funded with our tax dollars to market sex to our children in our schools under the guise of sex education, anti-bullying, diversity, and tolerance. Once sexualized, those children then become PP sex customers for contraceptives, STD testing, and abortion.

“A glance at the teacher outline for Lesson 1A, the introductory lesson (page 12 of the linked PowerPoint presentation), shows exactly how abstinence plays out in the sex-encouraging scheme at Planned Parenthood. ‘Abstinence,’ it says, ‘means choosing not to do any sexual activity that carries a risk for pregnancy or STD/HIV,’” says Rita Diller, national director for “In other words, abstinence has nothing do with abstaining from sex acts. So long as the student avoids STDs and pregnancy, and is comfortable with what he or she is doing, it’s an anything goes.”

Last year Diller’s parent organization, American Life League, released a video titled “Hooking Kids on Sex,” graphically detailing just what Planned Parenthood sex education is. It went viral and was viewed almost one-quarter million times in the first week before a PP activist got YouTube to suspend it. ALL came back with Hooking Kids on Sex (II). Even those who thought they knew Planned Parenthood were shocked.

Click here to READ the rest of the story.

Local Victoria’s Secret protest



VS protest

Many of you are asking how to find out if there are local events in your area.  The Mommy Lobby is helping to bring together citizens who want to show their support for this protest but we are relying on local parents help us out.

We are just getting started with this effort so here’s what we need you to do.

1.) Create a local event on Facebook with the date, time and location for your particular area.

2.) Share the event with everyone you know…ask them to share it.

3.) Email us at  and we’ll put your event in our database that way when someone asks about a local event we don’t duplicate efforts.

4.) Local coordinators can join us on a nationwide conference call to talk about this effort on Tuesday night.  Information about the call will be shared tomorrow.

5.) Keep talking about this issue and take a stand for our children.

6.) If there is already a local event  planned in your area, please share it with your friends.

7.) Sign in below for updates and more information on this effort and our upcoming efforts to protect our kids.



The Mommy Lobby

Silent Peaceful Protest of Victoria’s Secret


Protest against Victoria’s Secret’s BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS


Victoria’s Secret has pushed it too far with their latest BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS line and parents are stepping up to voice their concern.

On April 4, 2013, parents across America are coming together in silent peaceful protest to tell Victoria’s Secret that enough is enough and we expect them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Here’s the plan

Date: Saturday, April 6, 2013  

Time: 3:00-4:00pm EST or 12:00 -1:00pm PST   

Location:  Your closest Victoria’s Secret store

Come out to your local Victoria’s Secret store and stand in solidarity with other parents across the country to let people know that we are fed up.

Make signs (keep it respectful and watch your spelling!) about what your concerns are.  

Let VS know that as long as they target young girls like they’re doing we won’t shop there.

Expect them to respect us as parents and to stop exposing our daughters to sexuality at such an young age.  

There may be a chance that you are asked to leave the actual premises of the mall or shopping center.

If so, then take your protest outside at the most visible entrance possible.

We know that protesting isn’t something that we necessarily want to spend our Saturday doing but at some point you have to be the change you want to see.

If WE don’t stand up for our children, who will?

If you are interested in being a point of contact for your location, please contact us at

We’d love to talk with you and we’ll need all the help we can get!

So what do you say moms and dads?  It’s time to raise our voices and protect our kids!

Contact us for more information, updates and local contact information for your area!

Victoria’s Secret new campaign “Bright Young Things” targets young teens.

Victoria’s Secret has decided to delve into the pre/young teen market.  Tweens and teens shopping at Victoria’s Secret???  Ummm…I don’t think so.  

When I walk through the mall with my kids, it’s bad enough that I have to shield my young son’s eyes from the soft core advertising that Victoria’s Secret displays.  Or the fact that a few years ago they extended their reach to late high school/young college aged women with their Pink line. Now they’re targeting our daughters who just barely traded in their Barbie’s for lip gloss and Beverly Cleary for Twilight.  These young girls are still trying to figure out WHO and WHAT they are…and they’re already trying to sell them sexy panties?

As a mom I have to ask, “Is nothing sacred anymore?”  I mean, is there ANY reason to introduce our daughters to an identity that is obsessed with being sexy or sexual any earlier than is absolutely necessary?   And by absolutely necessary I mean—at all before they’re out of college?

We live in a culture that over sexualizes kids very early on.  From music, clothes, televisions shows…it’s everywhere you look.  And our young people are trying to emulate what they are being introduced to on an almost daily basis.

What’s crazy is that the executives with Limited Brands aren’t even shy about it.  They have absolutely NO qualms with lowering the bar for the young women in our society who are trying to learn about who and what they are.

Limited Brands’ Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer said this about the expansion into younger markets, “When somebody’s 15 or 16 years old, what do they want to be?”  Burgdoerfer asked. “They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic of what we do at Pink.”  

The magic?  Yeah, I don’t think so.  

Their most recent campaign is called “Bright Young Things”.  Check out their latest ad:

BRIGHT YOUNG THINGS….and they’re selling underwear…to teenagers.   Is this what we think of when we want our young girls to grow into “bright young” women?  Sexy panties?

I’m no prude.  I remember being young and wanting to be like the older girls. My grandmother would watch soap operas and I can still remember watching them thinking that was how I needed to act in order to “be a real woman”.  When I was around 6 or 7, I would pretend that I was one of the dramatic actresses who graced the screen on my grandparent’s console television.  I thought that’s what ALL women were like…except of course the women in my family.  I didn’t want to be like them! No, I wanted to be just like the glamorous women who played fake characters on t.v.!  Their lives were OBVIOUSLY more interesting than the boring lives that I saw on a daily basis.  As time went on and I was exposed to more and more “adult” content, that’s what I thought was normal.  And that line of thought often made me think that I was a lot older and mature than I actually was—and it got me into trouble.  Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and now that I’m a mom I have a TOTALLY different perspective on these types of things.

I want my daughters to fit in but I also want them to be young and innocent for as long as possible.  Allowing them that opportunity is very difficult with everything that’s thrown at them these days.  Those in the music, fashion and entertainment industry definitely aren’t interested in allowing them that.  They see young customers and will do everything they can to push the envelope.  As a parent it’s difficult to navigate the often torrential waters of influence.

I also learned early to pick and choose my battles carefully. I know that I can’t protect them from every negative influence in the world.  As much as I want to, I know that my job as a mom is not only to protect them but also to PREPARE them for the real world.

As a parent I try to teach my daughters that their intrinsic value is in WHO they are and WHAT they stand for.  That value is found in their hearts and mind…not how much skin they show or how much makeup they wear.  I’ve tried to instill in them the belief that NOT wearing certain things or being like other girls is perfectly acceptable.

It’s about them having respect for themselves.  By setting a higher bar for themselves people will see them for what their contributions are to society…not because they wear certain clothes. Like it or not, they understand that people will look at how they’re dressed and make assessments about them within a few seconds; it’s called a first impression for a reason. But shielding them from the negative influences is a never ending battle and it’s especially hard when their friends are allowed to wear these types of things.  

Girls in middle school often wear the same, if not more, amount of make-up than women 15 years older than them. The clothes they wear expose far more than I, as a mom, thinks is appropriate and trying to find a pair of shoes that doesn’t have  3 inch heel on them is nearly impossible.

But what I find amazing is when my fellow “conservative” mom friends allow their daughters to wear these things. Girls wear these things because that’s what we allow them to wear and some moms are perfectly fine with their daughter’s having the image of a hussy. I’m not that mom, but I digress.

This problem goes far beyond make-up and high heeled shoes.  We’re talking about parts of our daughter’s wardrobe that NO ONE should be seeing.

In what world do we think it’s acceptable to have 13, 14 or even 16 year old GIRLS wearing black lacy cheekster’s with the word “wild” on the back of them, a cheetah print thong with “call me” printed on the front or cutesy black and white polka dot panties with the words “feelin’ lucky”.  This is just CRAZY!!!  (The only thing that ran though my mind with I had the image of my 13 year old daughter wearing a pair of panties with the words “feelin’ lucky” on the back of them, was Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry…because THAT’S  exactly what I would be saying to anyone who was unlucky enough to be reading them.

I’m sure that there are going to be parents out there that think “what difference does it make” what kind of underwear they wear?  If I’ve raised them right it shouldn’t matter what kind of “cute” little sayings they have embroidered on their butts.  That’s crap.  If I spend my entire mothering career telling them that one way of behavior is appropriate and then let them wear this kind of thing, it’s sending them a very confusing and inconsistent message.

And from that confusing and inconsistent message I can assure you that NOTHING good will come…for ANYONE involved.   The only words that should be plastered across my young daughters panties should be “STAY AWAY”, “MY FATHER OWNS A .45” or “TURN BACK NOW OR DIE” .  That way, IF anyone is ever foolish enough to take their life into their own hands by discovering what their panties say, they can’t say they weren’t warned. 

Needless to say, my daughter’s won’t be shopping at Victoria’s Secret any time soon (as in like EVER before they’re in their 20’s).   I’d like to maintain their innocence of youth as long as possible.

They’ve got their entire lives to be adults…there’s no point in starting them any earlier than they have to.

Cindy Chafian-Founder The Mommy Lobby

What do you think?  Over protective or right on the money?  Would you allow your young daughters to wear these types of underwear from Victoria’s Secret?  Or would it be a cold day in Hades before your little girl had “wild’ written across her backside?


And share your thoughts here:

Video Highlight of Rand Paul’s Filibuster

Video Highlight of Rand Paul’s Filibuster

Today was an amazing day in American history.  A few courageous Senators led by the amazing Senator Rand Paul, took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of President Obama’s selection for CIA director, John Brennan.

But Senator Paul isn’t discussing John Brennan.  He’s discussing the recent memo that was released yesterday from Eric Holder stating that the President has the authority to make the call to kill Americans with a drone strike IN AMERICA.

As of 8:00pm EST, Senator Paul is still on the floor discussing the issue and raising issues about the rule of law in the United States, the Constitution and what authority the different branches of government have.  

He’s stated that all the President needs to do in order to end Sen. Paul’s filibuster is to state, in no uncertain terms, that the President nor the Department of Defense has the authority to kill non-combatant Americans while they are on American soil.  Seems simple enough, right?  Wrong.  It’s been almost 8 hours and there hasn’t been a peep from the President or any of his administration acknowledging this fact.

We commend Sen. Paul and applaud his stand.  It’s a refreshing change to finally see someone willing to stand up for America.

Show your support to Senator Paul as well as the other Senators who have taken the time to show their support for his efforts to bring sanity back to Washington!

Senator Rand Paul-(KY) 202-224-4343

Senator Mike Lee (UT) 202-224-5444

Senator Ted Cruz (TX) 202-224-5922

Senator John Cornyn (TX) 202-224-2934

Senator Jerry Moran (KS) 202- 224-6521

Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA) 202-224-3521

Senator Pat Toomey (PA) (202) 224-4254

Senator Marco Rubio (FL) 202-224-3041

Senator Ron Wyden (OR) (202) 224-5244

America get threats…Egypt gets jets and cash



The United States has a long history of  giving money to other countries in return for favorable position.

Egypt is no different.

At a time when the United States is struggling to get it’s fiscal house in order, President Obama has promised Egypt leadership an initial installment of $250 Million with another $200 Million to come quickly down the road.

Other goodies also promised by the president compliments of hardworking taxpayers:

EgyptF16_25th_700 (1)

20 F-16 Fighter jets (4 already delivered another 16 on order)

200 Abrams tanks

Armored personnel carriers

Apache helicopters and hundreds of  millions of dollars in surplus military equipment.  

When American citizens are being threatened with everything under the sun because the President simply has “no choice”  but to cut essential employees and programs, it’s difficult to see how he can reach this conclusion given the circumstances and obvious changes in the political climate in Egypt.

Some claim that we are obligated to adhere to the provisions of the Camp David Accords.  However, we would argue that since the fall of Hosni Mubarak and the subsequent takeover of the Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood, the terms of the Accords have completely fallen by the wayside.

According to Jay Sekulow (Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice) Egypt is clearly not adhering to THEIR side of the agreements.

Since the Arab Spring the Egyptian leadership has been accused of the following acts:

  • Egypt is violently persecuting its Coptic Christian minority, even going so far as arresting small children for allegedly defiling the Koran.


  • It’s security forces failed in their legal responsibility to protect the American embassy as protesters stormed the embassy, tore down the American flag, and replaced it with the black flag of jihad.
  • Egypt is now becoming not just a source of terrorists but also a launching pad for terror attacks; deadly terror attacks have been launched against Israel from Egyptian soil and Egyptian terrorists were present in the 2012 Benghazi attack and in the recent attack and violence in Algeria.
  • Despite getting credit for brokering the Israel/Hamas cease fire last November, Egypt loudly and publicly backed Hamas, a terrorist organization and a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Egypt has passed a Shariah-based constitution that restricts religious freedom and provides a legal basis for continued persecution of Egypt’s embattled Christian minority.
  • Egyptian authorities denied the U.S. direct access to a Benghazi terrorist suspect, a shocking act from an alleged “ally.”
  •  Egypt’s president is a blatant and outspoken anti-Semite who calls Jews the “descendants of apes and pigs” and said that Egyptian children should be “nursed” on “hatred” for Israel.

Does this sound like the type of government we should be supporting with our tax dollars?

We understand that in the complicated world of international relations not extending an open ear (or bankbook) will often drive countries who MAY be open to an amicable relationship with us directly into the pockets of our enemies.  It’s important to keep the lines of communication open and we SHOULD provide support for those countries which are genuinely interested in providing for the safest most productive environment for all parties involved.  But the countries who are turning to the United States as a provider of support MUST prove themselves worthy of such support.

Given Egypt’s most recent track record, we can’t say that they have deemed themselves as such.

What do YOU think?  Should we be providing financial or military support to Egypt right now?