Is this Planned Parenthood representative extra-evil, or just remarkably consistent?

Planned Parenthood kills babies for a living, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they encourage kids to have all sorts of out-of-wedlock sex and pretend that it can be done without risks, and so much more.  Yet one of their representatives managed to shock people during a public hearing. Watch it yourself:

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions.  She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.”  (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony).  And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table.  Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he deserves a second shot.  Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree.  But who are the inconsistent ones?  I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them.  Everyone in the video seems to concede that.  This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?

And she would be right.  While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal to the abortion.  (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

And if those babies can be killed, why not any baby delivered naturally?

Guns vs. abortions

This post about Purchasing A Gun vs. Purchasing An Abortion made some excellent points about the many inconsistencies in how the Left approaches the Constitution, regulations and life issues.  Hat tip: My favorite blogger

Let’s take a look at the differences and similarities between purchasing a gun and purchasing an abortion.

Both guns and abortions are goods or services which are produced and purchased on the free market.

When a gun is purchased, there’s a 99%  chance that gun will never result in the death of a single individual. When an abortion is purchased, there is a 99% chance the abortion will result in the death of an individual.

My tax dollars aren’t used to purchase a gun for someone who can’t afford it. My tax dollars are used to purchase an abortion for a woman or a girl who can’t afford it.

You can legally use a gun to kill an attacker in self-defense, if your life is threatened. You can legally use an abortion to kill a baby for any reason, including the mother’s life being threatened by the baby.

You can get suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun. Read here. You can get the morning after abortion pill from the school nurse.

There is a background check and a waiting period in order to purchase a gun. There is no waiting period or back ground check to purchase an abortion. For a girl under 18 there are 6 states that require at least one parents permission 24 to 48 hours before the abortion.

. . .

On the one hand the left worked to create and expand a nonexistent right, which forced their morality concerning abortion on the states and the people, and on the other hand, they want to restrict and take away a clearly stated right concerning fire arms, which would also force their morality on the states and the people.

I guess the lesson to be learned is, the left wants to force their morality on us through government coercion, rather than trying to persuade people to accept their morally superior ideas as gospel.

I encourage you to read the entire post to pick up the points about the Constitution..

Has your media of choice told you about the abortionist on trial for killing born-alive babies?

If not, you should really expand your horizons.  Shouldn’t this be front page news, and worthy of extended series a la Casey Anthony? Via Assistant to Kermit Gosnell admits to killing ten born-alive babies:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist now on trial in Philadelphia charged with seven counts of first-degree murder–he allegedly cut the spinal cords of late-term aborted babies who were born alive–apparently used to joke about the large size of some the infants he aborted and in one case, according to what a co-worker told the grand jury, said, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”

Gosnell, 72, who ran a multi-million dollar abortion business in West Philadelphia, was arrested on Jan. 19, 2011, and his trial started Monday, Mar. 18, 2013. The first-degree murder counts refer to seven late-term aborted babies who were born alive and then killed, their spinal cords cut with scissors.

Gosnell is also charged with the third-degree murder of a pregnant woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, who died after being given a pain killer at Gosnell’s office. He also faces several counts of conspiracy and violation of Pennsylvania’s law against post-24-week abortions.

I was in 24 Hour Fitness at lunch one day and surprised that CNN was actually covering part of this, but my understanding is that the rest of the Leftist media is ignoring it.  After all, it doesn’t fit in with their pro-abortion propaganda or these loving abortionists who just want to help women.  Interestingly, even the pro-abortion CNN anchor was visibly mystified at a guest’s suggestions for Gosnell’s defense arguments.

In addition, did your media of choice tell you how aggressively President Obama fought to make Gosnell’s actions legal?  His battles to permit the killing of babies who survived abortions are well documented.

As has been thoroughly documented with Planned Parenthood, people who kill babies for a living will do all sorts of other evils: Hide statutory rape and sex trafficking crimes, lie, cheat, ignore safety and health regulations and more.

Note that as gruesome as these crimes are, killing a one week old human being in the womb is just as immoral.

The Good Samaritan and abortion

The parable of the Good Samaritan is timeless and often told by Bible-believing Christians and by theological Liberals.  The meaning of the passage hinges on the definition of two words: Neighbor and love.

1. Who is my neighbor?  Everyone, including the person I’m least likely to consider my neighbor.
2. What does it mean to love?  To have the long-term best interests of others at heart, and to put their needs above mine.

Abortion fails badly on both counts.

All Christians should oppose abortion.  (OK, everyone should oppose the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings, but Christians should be universally anti-abortion).

“But they might be poor!”

There are lots of bad pro-abortion arguments, but one of the worst is that the unborn might end up poor.  Here are a few things wrong with that.

1. Even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, that uses the wrong definition of poor.  There are very, very few truly poor people in this country.  Most of the poor (who, as Roxanne notes, are only poor because someone has to be on the left side of the Bell curve) live better than even royalty did 200 years ago.  Some people are so “poor” that they can’t afford to work because they’d be taking a pay cut from their benefits.

That definition of poor would mean that 90% of the world should have been aborted.  Ask anyone using that argument how many Third World countries they have visited.

2. Even if they really would be poor their entire lives and even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, note the word “might.”  It is the sadly pessimistic but false view of Liberals that once your family is poor that you always stay that way.  But people often move between economic classes.  Hey, just graduate high school and don’t have sex out of wedlock and you are very unlikely to be poor, even by the U.S. definition.

Killing them because something “might” happen sounds like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons (“Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”)

3. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the right to life of the unborn.

4. Using that logic we could do poor people a favor by killing them outside the womb, too.  After all, the size, location, level of development and degree of dependency have no bearing on the value of a human being.  The world just rationalizes it so they can kill unwanted human beings.

—

Sadly, many of those using this argument claim the name of Christ.  A woman in a Bible study once used that as her justification to be “pro-choice,” even though she had been in church her entire life.  The notion that the author of life (Acts 3:15) would be pro-abortion is ridiculous.

If you want to help poor people, that’s great.  But killing them is a dubious way of going about it.

Roundup

How to shut down gossip and its nasty kin – good analysis and tips

First, understand what gossip is. Gossip is spreading harmful information in an ungodly manner — without love, and thus to no positive end. Its bastard stepchildren are the triplets: Strife, Dissension, Division.
Second, do any or all of the following steps, as needed. Some of them help identify whether you’re actually hearing gossip or not. All of them will stop it dead. But none will work… unless used.

1. Ask, “Why are you telling me this?” Often, that in itself is such a focusing question that it can bring an end to the whole unpleasant chapter. It has the added benefit that it can help a person whose intentions are as good as his/her judgment is bad.

There are more suggestions, but the first is all you need.

—

Sad but true examples of Communism and the risks of gun control and gun registrations.      You have to be remarkably ignorant of history to trust that malicious people won’t take advantage of you being disarmed.

—

If anyone tries to call you a bigot, just ask them for the definition and then ask if they are tolerant of different opinions.

big·ot – noun – a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Oddly enough, those using the word fit the description much better than those they attempt to malign with it.

—

Surprised? Diet Soda May Increase Chance of Diabetes

We are not fans of diet drinks. There are many reasons to abstain from them, and a recent study just added another: type 2 diabetes.

In a European study of 66,000 women middle age and up, over 14 years, a definitive correlation was found between consumption of diet soft drinks and type 2 diabetes. Even more amazing: the correlation was STRONGER than the one found with consumption of regular soft drinks!

The risk of diabetes grows by 60% with the consumption of just 1 cup of diet soda a day. Consumption of 100% fruit juice did not show any increase in diabetes risk.

—

Equal time.

You Asked: Should I Get ‘Re-Baptized’? (Paedobaptist Answer)

You Asked: Should I Get ‘Re-Baptized’? (Credobaptist Answer)

—

About the war on women . . . why the media blackout on this one?  Doctor Death: 29-Year-Old Patient Dies After Late-Term Abortion in Maryland UPDATE: Complete Media Blackout by Feminists, Major News Organizations

—

This is so predictable but important to mention: The media’s deliberate non-reporting of Leftist-media fueled violence.

Alleged Los Angeles shooter Christopher Jordan Dorner, influenced by left-leaning media coverage of gun crime in the wake of the Newtown shootings, has virtually paralyzed the City of Angels. Floyd Lee Corkins, a gunman incensed by anti-gay marriage bias after reading articles by the liberal advocacy group Southern Poverty Law Center, took a firearm into the Family Research Council’s headquarters with the intention of killing “as many as possible.” He hoped to smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of as many corpses as he could. These shooters were clearly moved by left-wing media, and we should thank every benevolent force in the universe that they were. Had either shooter possessed even a tenuous link to a conservative group, a media-driven hysteria about the malevolent influence of right-wing broadcasters and commentators would be gripping the nation today. Fortunately, when a crazed shooter’s ideology is explicitly and demonstrably left-wing, the media displays admirable restraint about linking a gunman’s politics to their acts of violence.

—

Some feminists behave like sluts and sometimes kill their children to:

1. prove that they don’t need or want men
2. to attract men

Yes, those are contradictory, which is probably what makes the women so unhappy.  But what makes them even more unhappy is that their behavior has the opposite effect of item #2.  See Stop Putting Out So Much, Ugly Sluts: Science Proves Undeniable Truth #24:

Interestingly, the more attractive the woman, the fewer sexual partners.

You didn’t really need a scientific study to know this, if you’ve been studying feminism as long as I have. Just ask yourself: Why are feminists so angry at men? It’s not merely because they are ugly — not all ugly women are feminists — but rather because they are bitter after discovering that their promiscuity doesn’t actually make them more attractive (which popular culture had convinced them would be the case).

What?!  You mean they sacrificed their purity, self-esteem, health and children and still didn’t get what they wanted deep-down after all?  That’s sad.  But remember, Satan is evil, not stupid, and he’ll keep lying if you keep believing.  The Liberal mindset is poison.

—

According to overwhelming evidence, more guns = less crime.

Click for details.

—

Oh, and your taxes fund the cover-ups of these crimes by Planned Parenthood.

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Free speech is so 20th century.

The only good thing about the across-the-board attempts to limit the free speech of Conservatives is that it reveals the very low confidence of the opposition.  As a Christian, I would never want to limit the ability of other religions to express their views.  I am all for the free expression of views in the market place of ideas.  I have confidence that my worldview holds up quite nicely.

If you care about free speech you should be chilled at what is going on in the U.S.  and in other Western countries (which inevitably ends up here).  Here are just a few examples.

Conservative views in general: See the Obama administration’s War on Fox  and the “Fairness” doctrine.

Pro-lifer: Pro-legalized abortionists shouting down pro-life speakers on a college campus in Canada — you know, one of those bastions of free speech and “challenge authority” philosophies.  How dare you mention in public the scientific fact that life begins at conception?

Intelligent Design: Darwinists Launch Cyber Attack Against Intelligent Design Website – Ever hear of Christians attacking atheist web sites like that?  Wow, these people are so fearful of anyone challenging their worldview.  Of course, you should also consider the whole Expelled! movie.

Hate speech laws:  Coming soon to a country near you: Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade

After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.

But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.

But don’t worry, if you are a Liberal you can publicly label a woman as a whore and have no consequences.

The Daily Kos makes our pro-life messaging much easier

For some reason my Yahoo! page sometimes has links to the Daily Kos site.  Normally I ignore them but this one caught my eye: Daily Kos: ‘Pro-life’ terrorists super excited about this year’s Fetuspalooza.  It was about as winsome and attractive as a protest by Democrat Fred Phelps.

I realize that those in the pro-abortion* crowd would give the author virtual high-fives, but it occurred to me that the shrill, hateful rhetoric actually helps us.  Sometimes just standing next to an out-of-control person makes you look better by comparison.

Here’s a sample:

Ah, January in Washington D.C. Bare trees, icy sidewalks, inauguration plans underway—and terrorists dressed up like sweet little grandmothers bussing to the nation’s capital, ready for their annual celebration of restricting women’s access to health care.

That’s right, it’s time for Fetuspalooza 2013!

One of the best things for the pro-life movement would be for middle-ground people to go to the march and watch how the pro-lifers behave relative to the pro-abortionists.  She can use personal attacks like “terrorist” all she likes but regular people will see that those really are sweet little grandmothers – and people who regret their abortions, and those who understand that we shouldn’t kill innocent but unwanted human beings, and so on.

Killing unwanted human beings is not healthcare.  As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, the author ignores the health of the unborn human being destroyed because she is unwanted.

And yes, we do try to protect fetuses.  Human fetuses.  As in human beings at a particular stage of development.  We think it is bad to kill human beings at any stage of development just because they are unwanted.

Ever since the Supreme Court held in 1973 that yes, women have the right to decide whether and when they want to have children—a right that has been redefined, restricted and outright denied ever since—the fetus fetishists have gathered for the “March for Life” to either celebrate or mourn, depending on just how successful their war on women and doctors has been in the preceding year. In 2012, 19 states passed 43 new laws restricting reproductive rights, so you figure there will be an awful lot of celebrating at this year’s march.

Yea for restricting abortions!  Good for those states and those laws.  That is worthy of celebration.

The author uses the fallacious term “reproductive rights.”  Anyone familiar with science or logic knows that abortion kills human beings that have already been reproduced.  Reproductive rights could apply to birth control, but never to abortion.  And even if that term wasn’t anti-science, it would ignore the rights of the unborn human being.  If you kill her then you took away her right to reproduce someday.

Sarah Kliff at the Washington Post writes about one such fetus fetishist who has devoted her life to terrorizing the Allegheny Reproductive Health Center in Pennsylvania and is very excited about her upcoming four-hour bus trip to “to spend the day with 100,000 other people who feel the same way that I do”—meaning, of course, a big group hug with thousands of other like-minded terrorists.

Well, she called us fetus fetishists and terrorists again, so she must be right.  Oh, wait, which side celebrates the destruction of over 3,000 innocent but unwanted human beings each day?

Helen Cindrich got her start in 1972, when “she saw a woman on a television talk show describing her pregnancy as a ‘parasite.’” Cindrich turned to her local Catholic diocese to find out what she could do to stop women from having non-Cindrich-approved feelings about their pregnancies. Naturally, her diocese was only too happy to help her get involved in the movement because Jesus was all about preventing women from accessing health care, even when it means they’re going to die, because that’s so lifey.

The parasite argument is very common with pro-aborts.  There are many things wrong with that, thought I actually like it when they use it.  It may fire up their base but middle-ground people will be repulsed.

In addition to the points in the link, I like to ask the “parasite” argument people if they would approve of killing the baby by any means once she is delivered but still connected by the umbilical cord.  After all, by their definition, the baby is living parasitically off the mother.  So to be consistent the baby could be killed with anything you’d use to kill a real parasite — hammer, gun, RAID, etc.  I have literally had people delete an entire series of their comments on Facebook after having the logical conclusions of their arguments exposed with that example.  Or they’ll do anything to change the subject.

Re. the women’s feelings — I don’t know the person she is referring to, but we aren’t in the business of approving feelings, we are trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings.

I know countless pro-lifers and not one opposes abortions to save the life of the mother, so that objection is a straw man.

The author’s projection of extremely limited anti-abortion violence to all pro-lifers is dishonest and inconsistent.  Pro-lifers have been shot by pro-aborts, so using her logic the pro-aborts are all terrorists.  And every pro-life group and individual I know opposes violence against abortion providers.

Eight of Pennsylvania’s 22 surgical abortion providers failed to gain approval under the new law. They can offer medical abortions, using a prescription drug, but not perform surgical procedures. To comply with the regulations, abortion clinics will need to install hospital-grade elevators and have a set number of parking spaces.

Yea!  One of the many things the radically pro-abortion media doesn’t tell you is about how shoddy and unsafe abortion clinics are (and not just for the unborn).

The author goes on to call us terrorists a few more times, so again, she must be right.  This looks more like terrorism to me.

The post pretty much sums up the Daily Kos and those who agree with it.  As irritating as they are, it is impossible not to look good by comparison to such radical pro-abortion extremists.

Just keep reminding people of simple, irrefutable facts and logic:

It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization.  It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.  The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).  Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

Our opponents can call that terrorism all they like, but deep down we all know it is the truth.

* I used to use the term pro-choice, but that applies to very few people now.  Anyone who supports taxpayer-funded abortions — as the Democrat’s platform does — is pro-abortion.  They think that pro-lifers don’t have a choice as to whether they should have to fund abortions, and they think that one of our society’s problems is that we aren’t killing enough unwanted human beings.

Dear Catholics who voted for Obama,

Does this bother you at all?

• The Democrats consider anyone who holds Catholic views on marriage to be “haters.”  The Pope himself would not be eligible to speak at Obama’s inauguration.
  
• The official platform of the Democrats is to have unrestricted abortions funded by taxpayers.  They aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
• They are forcing your organizations to pay for birth control, including abortifacient drugs, and to permit same-sex couples to adopt children.  They would rather your hospitals and adoption clinics close down rather than relent on these issues.

If you vote for Democrats you should quit calling yourself Catholic.  They strenuously oppose your organization on the key social and moral issues of the day, and are working overtime to take away your religious freedoms.

Note: There is a reason I’m not Catholic — actually, 95 of them — but I have always appreciated their pro-family, pro-life views, and I know many “bad Catholics” who hold to the Protestant (i.e., biblical) view of justification.

False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  ”Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

The Oxymoronic “Christian Left Blog”

The Christian Left Blog is anti-Christian, oxymoronic and hypocritical.  For starters, they actively advance their side of the “wedge issues” of abortion and “same-sex marriage” while pretending that we should just give up.  Unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion was the #1 theme at the Democrat National Convention and “same-sex marriage” is the #1 issue dividing denominations — and not because the Bible-believers are trying to change things.

It is highly disingenuous of them to pretend that the church was pro-abortion and pro-gay theology for 2,000 years and then these mean conservatives came along to drive a wedge.

They are so sloppy and anti-scientific in their language. “Reproductive choice” is a popular euphemism for abortion, but 100% of abortions kill unwanted human beings who have already reproduced.  Don’t let them get away with putting a positive spin on death.

Predictably, they tout “marriage equality” but same-sex unions are not and will never be equal to real marriage because by nature and design they can never produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to a child.

The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Even non-Christians and two out of the three types of pro-gay theologians* can see these truths:

• 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
• 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
• 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
• 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

And their slogan includes a straw man as well.  No one is claiming that homosexuals aren’t autonomous and don’t have the right of free association.

They use tired, horrible arguments like these:

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. But don’t judge others who may be in terrible circumstances that you can’t possibly understand. Especially when your judgements are based on a politically motivated and questionable interpretation of the Bible (at best).

Slave owners used the same argument: Don’t like slavery?  Don’t own one.  You could plug any crime in that sentence and it would be equally fallacious.  Every time it would ignore the victim, just like their pro-abortion reasoning does.

Those who say, “If you’re a Christian, you have to be against abortion, and therefore you must vote republican,” are simply reciting talking points from false teachers.

False teachers?!  Indeed.  It is the theological Left that denies essentials of the faith — Jesus’ divinity and exclusivity, the authority of scripture, etc.

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it.  He said nothing.

Ah, the What Jesus didn’t say argument.  I am embarrassed for people that use that.  Here are the highlights of why that argument is so bad.  Click the link for more.

• Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy
• Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture
• Jesus supported the Old Testament law to the last letter
• The “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were
• Jesus emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.)
• He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.)
• He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them
• Abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.  They actually thought that children were a blessing!
• And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior and abortion, so it must be OK!

* 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it”

From the “I am not making this up” category: “Pro-lifers are just ‘trying to build up the’ white race”

I’ve had that completely backwards charge recklessly thrown at me before, but this is from journalists who should know better.  From the government’s own statistics, the rate of abortions in the black community is three times that of whites, and the Hispanic rate is double that of whites.  You do not have to be skilled in math to realize that less abortions would result in a lower percentage of white people in the population, not a higher percentage.

So if our motives are racist then we’re doing the opposite of what we should be doing!  We should adopt the official platform of the Democrats, which involves taxpayer-funded abortions without restriction at any stage of pregnancy.  That would take those black and Hispanic rates even higher and help prop up our white majority.  But of course that isn’t our goal.  We just want to save lives, even if it means handing votes to our ideological enemies.

But these journalists are so blinded by their racist worldview that they miss the obvious.  Via Pro-lifers are just ‘trying to build up the’ white race:

WASHINGTON. D.C., November 12, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A commentator on MSNBC has said white people want to end abortion, because “they’re trying to build up the” white race.

On Saturday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry reviewed the declining portion of the electorate made up by white people and asked her panel about “ the demise of the white man.”

“It’s been weird to watch white people report on this,” said CBS contributor Nancy Giles.

“When you just showed that graph of the decline of the numbers, I thought maybe that’s why they’re trying to eliminate all these abortions and stuff. They’re trying to build up the race.”

An elementary school student should know that the math proves the opposite of that.

White voters made up 81 percent of the U.S. electorate in 2000, but only 72 percent in 2012.  The percentage is expected to keep falling.

The demographic shift allowed Barack Obama to be elected president with only 39 percent of white voters.

Perry responded to Giles by saying, “There’s always eugenics associated with these questions.”

The comment seemed ironic, as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was an outspoken proponent of eugenics, spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally, and referred to “dysgenic” populations as “human weeds.”

Abortion disproportionately affects the black population, a fact pointed out by Pastor Luke Robinson at the keynote speech at the 2011 March for Life. As much as 60 percent of unborn black babies are aborted in New York City.

Dr. Day Gardner told LifeSiteNews.com the decline in black population has hurt their political clout. In the 1960s, “everybody wanted to reach out to us and get our vote, especially the Democrats,” she said. “Now they are courting the Hispanics, because we are no longer the largest minority in the United States.”. . .

Nevertheless, liberals frequently accuse the pro-life movement of sub rosa racism. Brian Fung wrote in The Atlantic that “an abortion ban” is really “an attack on women of a specific stripe: those from disadvantaged minorities and the poor.”

Those are the populations most likely to be targeted by abortionists. Ashutosh Ron Virmani, an abortion provider in North Carolina, boasted earlier this year that he only aborts “ugly black babies.”

Did you catch that?!  The abortionist called them “ugly black babies.” And did you see the Youtube video of the black woman saying how abortions will prevent ugly, nappy-haired children from running around?  Why aren’t Jesse and Al on the way there to protest?

The group Protecting Black Life recently found 79 percent of all Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood also sponsored the the African-American 2012 Essence Music Festival to deepen its roots with the black community.

Gardner said such efforts remind her of Sanger’s decision to hire black ministers to promote population control measures.

If policies that result in wildly disproportionate amounts of dead black babies aren’t racist, then nothing is racist.

P.S. This guy gets it – Black Legislator: Obama’s Given Us Nothing But Abortion.

Your tax dollars at work

It is just Planned Parenthood, doing the thing they do 2nd best — hiding rape.  Does it bother people that PP took $15,000,000 of our tax dollars to support Obama’s re-election so he could give them hundreds of millions more and to help them hide crimes like this?

This is from last year but was linked in a more recent article.  But they’ve been caught doing this countless times.  Via Planned Parenthood Quits Defending Secret Abortion on Raped Teen:

A lawsuit in which Planned Parenthood was recently found to have violated an Ohio informed consent law has been “resolved and dismissed,” according to the Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney who filed the suit.

ADF-allied attorney Brian Hurley represents the parents of a girl who, at age 14, was brought to a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion by the 22-year-old soccer coach who impregnated her.

“The health and safety of young girls is far more important than Planned Parenthood’s desire to make money on an abortion,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “This lawsuit was yet another clear demonstration of Planned Parenthood’s ongoing effort to put its profit margin ahead of the true needs of young women. If they truly cared about the girls who enter their doors, they would not be ignoring Ohio law and allowing statutory rape to occur so they can make money killing a baby. They also wouldn’t be trying so desperately to keep all of their records secret.”

In December 2010, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas determined that Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio Region violated state law when it failed to meet with the 14-year-old girl at least 24 hours prior to giving her the abortion. Following this, a psychologist found that the abortion had caused her to suffer significant psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The case was “resolved and dismissed” shortly thereafter.

Hurley, one of more than 2,000 attorneys in the ADF alliance, filed the suit Roe v. Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio Region on behalf of the girl’s parents when they discovered that Planned Parenthood allowed her to undergo the abortion at the behest of her soccer coach.

Neither Planned Parenthood nor the soccer coach notified the parents of the abortion or the sexual relationship.  Planned Parenthood also did not notify civil authorities, which is required in cases of statutory rape. The soccer coach was convicted of sexual battery and served three years in prison.

Ann Coulter: Rude, but right in exposing moral schizophrenia

Note: Please don’t be one of those people who sit out the election because Romney isn’t a Christian or doesn’t perfectly align with your views.  The lesser of two evils is less evil.  

And in this case, it is a lot less evil.

—–

Ann Coulter knows how to get attention.  I think she is over-the-top too often, but she is far more fact-based than anything I see on the Left.  And when her critics take the bait she exposes them for their extreme hypocrisy.

Consider the hand-wringing over her calling Obama a retard.  Of course she shouldn’t use terms like that.  But she wasn’t making fun of mentally retarded people, she was making fun of Obama.

More importantly, note the moral schizophrenia of those who criticize her for using a politically incorrect word referring to mentally retarded people while advocating for the legal destruction of those same people.

Remember, the Left celebrates the fact that they have reduced the number of people with Down Syndrome people by 90%.  Read that carefully: They haven’t prevented cases of Down Syndrome, they reduced the number of people with Down Syndrome by justifying the killing of them in the womb.

This illustration summarizes it perfectly (click here if you can’t see the image).

How long do you think it will be before Obamacare requires people to have abortions to eliminate “unfit” people?

And speaking of Obamacare, please don’t miss her latest column on the importance of electing Romney.  There are so many reasons he is vastly superior to Obama: The economy, religious freedom, the cause of life and more.  But the longest term impact will be whether we can put the brakes on the devastating consequences of Obamacare.

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

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

. . .

You know who specializes in rescuing failing enterprises and making things work? Mitt Romney.

Contrary to ignorant slanders about Romney’s private sector work, his specialty was not buying thriving companies and stripping them for parts. Rather, the Bain Capital model was to take companies that were on the verge of collapse — about to cut all jobs, pensions and health care for their workers — and save the business.

Romney is the Red Adair of his profession. He’s like a doctor who specializes in multiple gunshot wounds or an oncologist who takes only Stage 4 cancer patients. Yes, there were layoffs, but also lots and lots of jobs, profit, success, efficiency, saved businesses and saved lives.

. . .

Not only has Romney promised to issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare on his first day in office and then seek a formal repeal and replacement, but he’ll know how to do it. The savior of dying companies will fix health care in this country so that no Democrat will be able to wreck it again.

The only way to rid ourselves of this national poison pill, set to destroy both health care and the nation at large, is to elect Mitt Romney our next president.

Roundup

Government spends $61,194 on welfare for each household below the poverty line – the government is wildly inefficient and ineffective in solving problems like this.

—–

Whistleblower Cases Show Planned Parenthood Engages in Massive Fraud – Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media.  This is why Planned Parenthood’s CEO campaigned full-time for Obama for a while and why they “donated” millions of the tax dollars they received to the Obama campaign.

Planned Parenthood insists it is a necessary and trusted healthcare provider that must be supported by taxpayer dollars. Recently unsealed “whistleblower” lawsuits[i] tell a starkly different story. Former Planned Parenthood employees allege improper and illegal corporate policies were implemented by Planned Parenthood to increase profits, to the detriment of both the taxpayers and the women and families government programs seek to serve.

In the most recently unsealed suit, Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland,[ii] Sue Thayer, former manager for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), alleges that PPH filed nearly one-half million false claims with Medicaid. According to Ms. Thayer’s complaint, PPH fraudulently received and retained nearly $28 million in taxpayer funding through abusive billing practices.

Ms. Thayer alleges that to enhance revenues, PPH implemented a “C-Mail” program that effectively mailed thousands of unrequested birth control pills to women, and then billed the government for these pills. According to her complaint, PPH also solicited funds from patients for services fully covered by government programs while continuing to bill the government program for full reimbursement.

—–

But wait, there’s more: Planned Parenthood caught lying about its botched abortions.  Apparently and organization that kills unwanted human beings and perverts the minds of kids for a living doesn’t mind lying to help their business.

Our investigation exposes not only how unsafe Planned Parenthood clinics can be for women, but also how dishonest and untrustworthy Planned Parenthood is to the very women it claims to defend,” says Rose. “How shameful that two months after their clinic botched an abortion that took the life of 24-year old Tonya Reaves and her pre-born baby, Planned Parenthood lies to the public and pretends nothing happened. When it comes to the lethal dangers of its billion-dollar abortion business, no lie is too audacious for Planned Parenthood.

—–

And one more on PP — they are using $12m of your tax dollars to ask for more tax dollars. Their CEO is taking a break from running the abortion machine to campaign full-time for Obama.  She knows where her money comes from!  One more reason to vote Romney.

—–

Obama administration will pay companies to violate law governing layoff notices – shouldn’t this be front page news?  They are borrowing even more money from China for your kids to pay back, and just to further their personal political goals.

The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again—and this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense.

That’s worth saying again: The Obama Administration is encouraging people to violate a law, and promising that it will use taxpayer money to cover fines incurred from this action.

The law: The law in question is called the WARN Act, and it requires that federal contractors send employees layoff notices 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff.

The inconvenience: Massive defense spending cuts under sequestration are scheduled to hit on January 2, 2013. Defense contractors affected by the budget cuts would have to issue notice letters to employees by November 2 (four days before the election) to meet the January 2 start date for the spending cuts.

The penalty taxpayers would pay: Employers who violate the WARN Act are liable to their former employees for “back pay for each day of a violation” and “benefits under an employee benefit plan,” as well as a penalty of $500 for each day that notice has not been sent to the local government where the layoffs will occur.

—–

Obama Campaign Illegally Rakes in Foreign Donations – again.  And the media ignores it.

—–

From the “I am not making this up category” – Democrat of the Year Steals From Partially Blind, Developmentally Disabled Wheelchair-Bound Old Lady

The woman named “Democrat of The Year” this year by the Jefferson County Democratic Party has been convicted of felony theft by a Jefferson County jury for stealing from a developmentally disabled 71-year-old woman. …

On Thursday, a jury convicted 66-year-old Estelle Carson of felony identify theft and felony theft from an at risk adult for stealing checks from the woman and using them to pay her own cable, cell phone and internet bills.

The victim is partially blind, developmentally disabled, has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. She is on a fixed income of $596 per month according to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office.

Nearly as bothersome as the theft itself … is the fact the Jefferson County Democratic Party was made aware of the ongoing criminal investigation and honored Carson anyway.

—–

The most important fact of history ever: Jesus really rose from the dead.  And we have lots of evidence for our belief!  Don’t leave this life without carefully examining the evidence yourself.

—–

Yes, Benghazi is worse than Watergate. Sadly, the media is covering up the cover-up.  From John McCain:

You know, this administration is very good at touting and giving all the details like when they got Bin Laden. But now, we know that there were tapes, recordings inside the consulate during this fight, and they’ve gotten—they came—the F.B.I. finally got in and took those, and now they’re classified as “top secret.” Why would they be top secret? So the president went on various shows, despite what he said he said in the Rose Garden, about terrorist acts, he went on several programs, including “The View” including “Letterman” including before the U.N., where he continued to refer, days later, many days later, to this as a spontaneous demonstration because of a hateful video. We know that is patently false. What did the president know? When did he know it? And what did he do about it?

—–

Like Alfred Kinsey, Obama HHS “Grooming” Children for Sex – these people should be in jail.

Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

. . .

According to the FBI, child molesters:

• Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
• Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
• Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
• Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.

During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.

—–

Stay classy, pro-aborts:

As I alluded to in response to a comment made on my post reporting on the recent pro-life rally in Melbourne, there are a couple of things that I felt would have been beneficial to exclude from the event. I mention what those are in the below paragraphs.

One of the more interesting points I noted with regards to the pro-abortion protesters in my previous article was the tactical angle of their messages:

1. Shame, bigots, shame! Shame, bigots, shame!
2. We won, you lost! We won, you lost!
3. God raped Mary. She should have aborted
4. Black, white, queer, straight! Women will control our fate!
5. F*ck off, bigots, f*ck off! F*ck off, bigots, f*ck off!
6. Jesus was a gay sheila who was pro-choice!
7. You have 99 problems. They are all misogyny
8. I had an abortion because I chose life
9. Pro-choice is pro-life
10. Not every ejaculation needs a name
11. If the foetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it’s rights?
12. My vagina has nothing to do with your God
13. Jesus was not a fascist like these clowns

Contrast the above with these pro-life slogans espoused at the same event:

1. Its easy to be ‘pro-choice’ when you’re not the one being killed
2. Cruelty to animals is called ‘evil’. Torture to babies is called ‘choice’
3. Lots of people want to adopt [but there's] no babies!
4. We kill an AFL Grand Final crowd each year
5. Everyone deserves a birth-day
6. Mums need support, not pressure to abort
7. Every life is valuable
8. Change the law. Save the babies. Help the mothers
9. aDoPtion not aBoRtion
10. Each life is unique from conception
11. Pretend I’m a tree and save me
12. Take my hand, not my life
13. Pray to end abortion^*

—–

Throwing more money at education will not fix it.  More commentary here.  They should take a tiny portion of the budget and visit one-on-one with parents and caregivers and let them know that they are the key to the child’s success.  No amount of spending or government bureaucracy will overcome slacker parents.

I’m not getting it. If we’re spending so very much on education, why aren’t we the top? Why aren’t we the best educated people on the planet? Why do we keep trying to throw more money at it as if that will fix it? If throwing more money at it has not improved education, why do we continue to think that’s the answer? Or is that a learning problem, too?

Government & bedrooms

A common pro-choice sound bite is that “Government should stay out of our bedrooms.”  It is an emotional play on the theme of privacy, but the logic is poor for several reasons.

I don’t know of any abortions that occur in bedrooms.  I’m pretty sure that most take place at abortion clinics.  Rape, incest, pedophilia, murders, thefts and a host of other crimes can occur in bedrooms, but I don’t hear anyone suggesting that the government ignore those.

I realize those items were taking the claim literally, but the pro-choice reasoning also fails in a figurative sense.  Groups that claim to want the government out of bedrooms sure have cashed a lot of government checks for “educating” our youth on sexually related matters.  Planned Parenthood and the like appear to have a great deal of interest in your bedroom activities and those of your children, and they crave and receive massive government funding and do their best to destroy anyone who gets in their way — even breast cancer charities like the Komen Foundation.

If by “government out of our bedrooms” they mean “government out of our sex lives,” then Planned Parenthood supporters should ask that they refund all the money they have received (Over $4 billion since 1987) and get out of our schools.

As with most pro-choice arguments, this claim ignores the primary issue of abortion: Whether or not an innocent human being is killed.  If abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being, then of course the government shouldn’t be involved in determining whether the procedure is legal.  However, if it does kill an innocent human being, then it really doesn’t matter where the life of the unborn started.   And of course, the scientific fact is that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.

The government does not get involved in “bedrooms” in the sense that they dictate with whom consent adults can have sex.  But is should get involved when people want to destroy the unwanted human being created in those bedroom activities.

The Democrats want to intrude in the bedroom.  From their 2012 Platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The greater irony and hypocrisy of the Left is that they now want government to be explicitly involved in the bedroom by forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control and abortions.  They don’t mind if that tramples religious freedom.  Pro-lifers are being consistent here: Keep the government out of the bedroom but protect innocent human beings, and respect the First Amendment.

In addition, as Glenn noted in the comments, they also want the government to get involved in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians.  By nature and design those relationships don’t produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to child, so why would they need government involvement?

If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting for taxpayer-funded abortions, less religious freedom and government intrusion into the bedroom.