Who’s Sorry Now?

What an abortionist had to say about deciding to stop after doing them for years.

Live Action (read here)

Besides her pro-abortion philosophy, Aultman gives two other reasons why she became an abortionist:

“I also could make a lot more money doing abortions than I could make working in an emergency room. I enjoyed the technical challenges of the procedure and prided myself on being really good at what I did.”

More: https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-abortionist-ted-bundy/

So give her some credit for changing and stopping. But she did make a lot of money doing it and probably provided her a nice and comfortable lifestyle, until she did.

Then add this:

“I probably murdered more people than Ted Bundy or any of the mass murderers if you consider all the abortions that I did,” she says.

Consider that the abortionist and woman having an abortion may have the same economical motivations for their actions. I just never heard it put in such direct terms before. Well, I find it awfully hard not to make some deductions about that.

This opens a Pandora’s box in philosophical terms. You go to school to study medicine for the purposes of using it to fix people and save lives. Then you go to work using the same knowledge and talent to extinguish lives. How does the latter justify the former?

Should it take three scenarios to sound warning bells that something is wrong with this?

I’m not sure what to think of it all. Chew on that.

Advertisements

2018 Doctrine of Cultural and Civil Order

…that is, as defined by the left. And they wonder why so many people have problems with this paradigm of perversion propelled across the land by ‘liberaldoom’.

 

Dislike is being criminalized across America as hate; while genuine hatred is encouraged and rewarded for political gain as “tolerance.” Protecting the murder of babies becomes sacred doctrine as ‘law of the land.” One person’s objection removes or abolishes the free speech of masses, as the “social media.” Yet that is just par for their course.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” …”23who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of justice.”

Social Justice is miscarriage of justice and lawless behavior. Sexual desire of one supersedes any privacy and protections of everyone else under social justice.

Sedition is the highest, respectable form of patriotism. Criminality is rewarded and encouraged; abiding by and respect for the rule of law is hated.

Fair means by any means necessary, to the left. Protecting democracy now means destroying the Constitution. Sanctuary means special rights and privileges for some. Equality means picking winners and losers. “Antifa” is just a license for fascists. Fair means fomenting bias. Racist and racism is anyone who disagrees with the fascist left.

One person’s choice to use any bathroom outweighs everyone else’s privacy and choice in using that bathroom. You will be punished, if not charged, for objecting.

Choice is ratified as no choice for others. Murder is justified as the sacred choice and every official must swear on the altar to preserve it.

Mob rule under ‘pitchfork democracy’ is speaking truth to power. Resistance is conformity. Resisting democracy is saving democracy. Serving the public means being served by the public. Counting votes is cancelling votes or not accepting the vote count.

Investigation or impeachment is a diversion from corruption and treason that shall be honorably protected. Heroes of deceit shall be promoted to the highest level.

Transparency is keeping information from the public, whatever it takes. Only corrupted officials with conflicts of interest have integrity and cannot ever be charged — all others need to be recused from supervisory roles. A coup is now “preserving democracy”.

Dear God, save us from this ‘liberaldoom.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Waste No Time 2020

All the chatter has already shifted to the 2020 campaign. That didn’t take long. A Rolodex of names are being floated out of Dems just dreaming to be president. It would be easier to say who is not running. About every Democrat is running.

But before the 2020 race is a thing, could we at least get one thing straight? Pundits and media mention names like Biden, Sherod Brown and some others as “moderates.”

Moderate what? Moderate socialists? Now socialism is an endearing term to Dems .

Quit playing games. Can we all agree there is no such thing as moderate Democrats anymore? Democrats are all progressives now and there are no moderate progressives. Maybe Dems will try to invent them – for the sake of a ruse to confuse some people.

Moderate Dems on the national stage have been extinct since at least 2000. Even before that there were only a few. And those few lived out a dormant existence.

There is no such thing as moderates in the pool of progressives. There may be various levels of progressives at a given time but moderate is not one of them. Can we finally stop pretending they exist? Dems know it and so should we. It is exemplified in pro-life.

Look no further than abortion to see how far they’ve come in a short period. To show this contrast just look at the issue of life. Or in DFLA, Democrats For Life of America.

In 2003 “John Zogby found that 43% of Democrats “agreed with the statement that abortion ‘destroys a human life and is manslaughter.”” Now they have a litmus test that you cannot thrive and survive in the Democrat Party by being pro-life.

That is one of the best indicators of the state of Democats. But you could go issue after issue, to the latest Democrat primaries, only to find that on issue after issue they are progressives with a strong socialistic bent. It is the Marxist consolidation of America. There are many reasons for this homogenized statist affection, with organizing being one of the chief facilitators. Commie organizers are us, now led by Obama.

And in the last decade it has gotten worse. Remember the pro-life guy who pushed for changes in the Affordable Care Act? Bart Stupak is not even a footnote in most places.

(Vice News)“The Democratic Party has never been very welcoming to pro-life Democrats,” said former Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, the Democrat who led the charge against the Affordable Care Act over abortion restrictions in 2009. “They’re even less warm now, and the relationship has gone south.”

South? Even Stupak understates the real dichotomy. There is no room for pro-life Democrats at the Party table the way there was no room for Mary, Joseph and Jesus in the Inn. We need to stop entertaining all these fantastical hallucinations otherwise.

People must stop pretending there are moderates among national Democrats. The DNC must be laughing their asses off at that whopper. Christians should quit facilitating the notion, too. (but then that’s another big problem) I don’t like the pretend game.

Right Ring | Bullright

No means “no” except when it should

It would seem pretty ironic that the party of the radical left who never misses a chance to say no, in defiant “resistance,” just cannot say no to condemn violence of their left wing radical base. They can’t ever do that.

Instead, they will go to any lengths on the left not to voice any opposition to, or offer no condemnation for, the left’s violence. Whether it vandalizes a Republican building in NYC, burns police cars, or commandeers a chunk of a city in Washington, or whether leftists chase down conservatives in restaurants to create a crowd, or shout down Congressional hearings so you cannot hear. Dems will say or do anything else to avoid condemning it.

Out of those same zipped lips for condemning they call us extremists and dangerous. They have a phobia to the word no when and where it matters. But we know why.

They do condemn our use of the word Mob though, when that is how the miscreants act and who they are. But they can never condemn a possible friendly group to the Left, even if it is a rented one. They couldn’t even call MS-13 gang members animals for what they do. Instead, Nancy Pelosi said they have a spark of divinity.

The same spark of divinity that an unborn baby lacks.

They need anyone who could be a potential voter bloc for them whether legal or illegal. If they can use violence to their political ends then what won’t they use? That also fits the definition of terrorism — using violence to perpetuate their political ends. Yet we are supposed to be hostage to this political blackmail of the Mobacracy. And what does the Mobocracy want and support? A Thugocracy. Democrats call that a value of democracy.

No condemnation for cop killers, violence addicts, fascist Antifa, or those working on behalf of the Mobocracy. The only question remaining in the end is who is really in control in this Mobocracy of the left? Is it their politicians? Doesn’t seem so to me.

On the contrary, Holder said “when they go low, kick them.” Hillary said we can never have civility until they are in power. No, their hallmark is incivility, regardless.

So, I wonder why we didn’t see any civility when they were in control of all branches? What we got was “I won”….shut up and get in the backseat. We don’t need to hear from you. Incivility always rules; in power or out makes no difference. We got Obamacare lies.

Right Ring | Bullright

Democrat Campaign Rhetoric

I scanned a few “up and coming” Democrat candidates for Congress and here is what I find. Caution: it is a murky picture. Very entertaining though.

As background, you’ve heard about new Democrats being recruited to run in largely Republcan held districts. Many of them touting military careers and many of them women.

In the last few weeks, districts who were Republican are considered “toss ups”. More recently, some are being relabeled now “leaning Democrat.” Right, I believe that.

When you look at their social media campaign statements you see similarities.

Well, one after another their statements read like a book of platitudes. No, not about current hot button issues but glowing terms. My sampling were not heavily campaigning. They did not seem to have layers of popularity and comments on their posts.

But those posts themselves, claiming the reason they were running, read eerily similar too. They didn’t tell you about their stand on issues. But like this one, it was personal. Well like this: “I’m running for Congress so that our children will have a brighter future and so that all our daughters will know that they can grow up to be and do whatever they dream.”

‘Hello’…. I mean your children had no hopes or dreams without you running? Wait, children have had those ideals and goals as long as I remember. Glad yours now have a brighter future only because you are running! What does that say? Well, kids have had those rosy ideals until 2009, when dreams took a nose dive. Now they are back?

They talk about about “shared values” and “moving the country forward.” What does that mean? I prefer an ash heap, myself. All undefined, vague terms to try to appeal to voters’ emotions and inspirations without much thought to what the words mean. You are supposed to know if you are a left wing progressive Democrat. And you do: against tax cuts, raising taxes, growing spending, cutting military spending. All of which is like caviar on a cracker to Democrats. “Come get it”. Free college, socialized medicine, single payer, Medicare for all, opening up the borders. Who can be against all that?

Another lofty word they are for, “equality”. So like we Republicans are for inequality, the more unequal the better. They want “affordable” things; like we want everything unaffordable. They actually support policies that make things less affordable. “Together, we’ll bring a sea change to Congress.” What kind of change, doing what? What will be different with you in Congress? Right, your children will finally have a bright future. “We know how vital our educators are to our communities.” (pandering to teachers – unions) We don’t even like teachers or value them. In fact, we see no use for them.

“We are fighting to keep dark money out of politics.” That’s popular. Naturally, a reference to Citizens United and reversing the Supreme Court decision. Hillary touted that in her campaign along with overturning the Heller decision. They use a complete script of progressive code words for which only Dems have a decoder. Dog whistles like their talk about hatred or hate speech. We are racists while they are, well, the good racists.

No election is complete today without sympathy for illegals. Say nothing about the crimes committed by illegals which impact Americans from coast to coast. Then there is the animus for law enforcement, ICE or border control. But of course they use the right statements to frame it. So they want people afraid of law enforcement and unsympathetic to cops being killed. They want to dehumanize law enforcement, along with anyone who works for the Trump administration. Amnesty is the bomb, “a path to citizenship” is the rage, from people who don’t much value US citizenship. And we are not exceptional. In fact, NY Governor Cuomo led the charge saying “America never was that great.”

Give a shout out for “justice,” especially the more radical candidates. The rest of us must want injustice. Except that we have a lot of injustice going on coming right from the Dep of Justice, but Dems see none of it nor do they care. As long as Deep State is in control Dems are happy. And as long as they are in control of Deep State. But “justice” talk is usually the segue for Resistance — sedition. That subversive obstruction is always a good thing for Dems to run on and support, for justice’s sake, when they do not control government.

Another popular favorite is ____ is against women… “”who stand to lose access to affordable birth control.” I wish I had a nickel every time I heard that bumper sticker phrase. It was popular against Kavanaugh, too. No one is losing access. “Affordable” is now a code word for free or almost free. Losing access, a guaranteed right, to free this or that. Like I’m losing access to a Mercedes 450 SL. I declare such access a “right.” Still, loosing access to something free is a popular notion. Affordable just translates to what they think they should not pay for.

Then there is the golden altar or calf of abortion, Planned Parenthood. Useful against Kavanaugh and campaigning. But I see nothing threatening Planned Parenthood’s status or Roe v. Wade. Nothing. Yet the great scare is on to “protect women’s reproductive health, rights” from invisible harm.” Personally, I’m opposed to women’s reproductive health.

They tell us “stay out of women’s sex organs” yet march in the streets with vagina costumes, condoms and protest wearing pussy hats. They live and breathe in women’s reproductive organs, at least in campaigns, and want them exhaustively legislated. How can killing babies be a stand for women’s reproductive health, or for healthcare? Just do not not legislate that. They yell about preserving lives by preserving abortion and planned parenthood. Planned Parenthoods are saving lots of lives, aren’t they?

Another habit Dems seem to have in common, these up and coming pretenders, is that they make the entire campaign about them not the people they are running to represent. Is that telling? It is not about the issues. And the kicker is the Democrats seem to eat it up. They could not care less, only that he/she is a card carrying socialism-pushing progressive. In fact, whatever he/she says is fine, as long as they are progressive. They will vote with the Marxist left anyway, so what does it matter what they do or say?

So which is worse: the platitudes of vague ideals or what they do say about the issues? San Fran Nan called MS-13 members a spark of divinity. It contradicts her staunch support and protection for abortion. Does a spark of divinity only apply to gang-bangers? Aborted lives must be much lower on the chain than even MS-13 gang members.

But this is getting long, the hour is getting late. The contradictions and vague platitudes remain, popular only to the Left. What outcome can we expect from this soup for fools?

Right Ring | Bullright

Leave it to Chelsea and Planned Parenthood

Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.

Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:

By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
Comments

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.

And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/

She’s a monster, trust me on this one!

Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.

Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.

If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?

But maybe I could be off target somewhere.

Dem Dumpster Fire: Radicals vs. SCOTUS

Today is June 27th, 2018, henceforth to be known as the first day of the Democrat Dumpster Fire, and the hysterical meltdown that ensued to November.

This is what happens, the Democrats become unglued when they don’t get their way.

More at Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com/politics/liberals-decry-kennedys-retirement/

Here come the tears…

Working Nazi, death camps and Kennedy into the same tweet.
But we are still working on the names for those death camps… creativity in mind.

The “democracy” is collapsing around them, to hear progs tell it. And the way I see it is the republic has been given a 2nd chance, fortunately, from an 8-year death spiral and we are making good use of it.

Now they demand we wait for 2018 elections to nominate a SCOTUS pick.

Meanwhile, we just had a primary election yesterday and Dems, or should I say Democrat Socialists, are telling you what they are about — loudly. The commies have officially cannibalized the Democrat Party. So when they lecture about ‘moderates,’ you can laugh right in their face.

This shows the other thing Democrats do, they lie and then twist everything into a Gordian Knot. They think we can only nominate a Supreme Court Justice every 2 years.

Notice what the term “norms” really means to Leftists. They get their power and way… or revolution. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing it always meant to them for the last 50 years. Just that they now openly admit it. And now some of our naive Repub brethren cannot deny it.

But it is the same thing “mainstream” means to Democrats. Sheila Jackson Lee does a post-primary interview to repeat that’s who we are as Democrats, “we are a big tent party.” No, they consolidated into the commie mainstream. Who is the Dumpster Fire?

Finally, Democrats always complain that Donald Trump is just a reality TV star.
But he completely exposed the ‘reality‘ of who Democrats and the commie Left are.

The Dishonest Political Paradigm

When Trump points to media and calls them the most dishonest people, I have to disagree. The most dishonest people are the Democrats. MSM is only one of their sub groups.

You can count on one thing, whatever Democrats tell you an election is about or what they are running on, it is a lie. They can’t help themselves.

They say they are not running on impeachment. If they won, it would be the first thing on the agenda. Right above removing the tax cuts. Obstruction being the second item.

If Dems tell you that they are now about jobs and the economy, no they aren’t. They’ll claim that is their focus. But the Democrats’ agenda is a cultural cocktail of:

Open borders, pro-illegal immigration, saving sanctuary cities, sexology. turning education into their cauldron of sociology perversion, multiplying biological gender categories, tearing money away from too-rich people, building the socialist state, preserving the murder of humanity’s most innocent lives, redefining America as the Blame Capitol of the world, antisemitism, hating Israel, removing God from society, preserving the Swamp;…

Abolishing ICE, Appeasing terrorists, blaming terrorism on America, undermining and gutting our military defense, abolishing the second amendment, obstructing Trump’s agenda and nominations, stopping free speech of their opponents. protecting cop killers and criminals, using teacher unions and radicalized agendas to control schools, preserving the poor, and pushing their economy-busting regulation and global warming agenda.

Much of which opposes a thriving economy. Including their war on energy, and catering to our economic or technological competitors. Then there is their leftist assault on the Supreme Court as the fail safe defender of the progressive cultural evolution.

Right Ring | Bullright

Praise and Thanks to Cecile Richards

Woman Celebrated For Killing 3.5 Million People

The Babylon Bee — May 1, 2018

U.S.—After her final day as president of abortion provider Planned Parenthood Monday, thousands of people took to social media to celebrate Cecile Richards and thank her for killing 3.5 million people during her tenure.

The nation offered kind remarks on Richards’ positive attitude, support for women’s rights, and ruthless genocidal efficiency.

The hashtag #ThankYouCecile began trending as Planned Parenthood supporters all across the country expressed their gratitude to a woman who orchestrated the wholesale destruction of millions of innocent people. Supporters stated they wanted to make sure her twelve years of service and bloodshed weren’t forgotten as she moved on to the next chapter of her life.

“Your fight for women’s rights and access to healthcare is an inspiration to all of us. Also how you took the idea of killing unborn babies from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘any time for any reason without apology and SHOUT YOUR ABORTION!’ in one decade! #ThankYouCecile” one woman in New York tweeted along with a picture of the outgoing Planned Parenthood president. “We all owe you an eternal debt of gratitude.” Other tweets and social media posts expressed similar sentiments, with thousands praising Richards’ fierceness, bravery, and cold-blooded brutality.

http://babylonbee.com/news/woman-celebrated-for-killing-3-5-million-people/

Cecile gets praised like a humanitarian. How does she top a professional record like that? That is not counting what she and PP have done to election politics.

Abortion: (just don’t call it by name)

Call it a “right”
Call it “healthcare”
Call it “choice”
Call it a “reproductive right”
Call it a “civil right”
Call it “safe”
Call it a “necessary”
Call it an “inconvenience”
Call it “fixing a problem”
Call it “responsible”
Call it “legal”

Call it anything… anything except what it is! Evil (that’s offensive) murder, genocide.

Does 60,383,268 in US since 1973 sound rare? (8.094,076 by PP) 2,009 just today.
Worldwide since 1980, nearly 1.5 billion.

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

Fetus abuse again by PP

In an attempt to out gross itself. Planned Parenthood pulls a new low, even for them.

Life News

Sadly, the United States Supreme Court severely limits what pro-life laws can be enacted at the state and federal level. This is due to the Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which holds that judges can strike down laws if they constitute an “undue burden” to women seeking an abortion. However, that hasn’t stopped us from trying several different approaches to promote a culture of life in Texas. One important legislative issue we have been working on in response to the CMP videos has been to require the humane disposition of aborted babies.

In Texas, the remains of aborted babies may be disposed of by interment, cremation, incineration followed by interment, steam disinfection followed by interment, grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills. In 2016, the Department of State Health Services proposed a rule change, and then last legislative session, the Texas Legislature passed a law, SB 8, removing the options of grinding fetal remains and flushing them in the sewer system or discarding them in landfills.

Read more http://www.lifenews.com/2018/03/01/abortion-clinics-grind-up-remains-of-aborted-babies-and-flush-them-in-the-sewer/#.WpjkIg6CjD0.wordpress

Instead of getting better, it always gets worse with Planned Parenthood. Or grosser and grosser. What else would you expect from PP, but to fight ethics and dignity?

What’s a little astroturf on gun control?

Why Did It Take Two Weeks To Discover Parkland Students’ Astroturfing?

The Federalist

The Miami Herald credited their success to the school’s stellar debate program. The Wall Street Journal said it was because they were born online, and organizing was instinctive.

On February 28, BuzzFeed came out with the actual story: Rep. Debbie Wassermann Schultz aiding in the lobbying in Tallahassee, a teacher’s union organizing the buses that got the kids there, Michael Bloomberg’s groups and the Women’s March working on the upcoming March For Our Lives, MoveOn.org doing social media promotion and (potentially) march logistics, and training for student activists provided by federally funded Planned Parenthood.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/01/take-two-weeks-truth-emerge-parkland-students-astroturfing/

When Dems say grasroots they mean astroturf. Almost made to order. Hmm.

PP-Hood’s leader to resign

On the pro-death front, Planned Parenthood’s CEO to resign.

Washington Times reports:

By Bradford Richardson – Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Cecile Richards is stepping down as president of the Planned Parenthood after more than a decade at the head of the nation’s largest abortion provider.

BuzzFeed News first reported the story, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said Ms. Richards, 60, “plans to discuss 2018 and the next steps for Planned Parenthood’s future at the upcoming board meeting” next week.

Pro-life activists reacting to the news said Ms. Richards‘ legacy will be one of “death and destruction.”

I suppose she wants to discuss 2018 in view of the mid-term elections and future of Planned Parenthood. Why is it such a political player?

There comes the protest pussy hats

I could be a little old fashioned on newfangled ways but I still like to think women do not have to wear funny hats and clothes, then go out to march in the street with a sign, to better their circumstances. Maybe that’s just me?

Oh look, it’s the Pussy Hat Brigade on their way to their beat.

Uh, hello, “elephant in the womb”? No one thought about that one too long.

It’s not an elephant. But that’s what happens when they pay absolutely no attention to the March For Life, which has been going on for many years, unlike the Pink Wave fadinista.

But then who would have thought that in 2016 women would be voting with their reproductive organs either? Evolution?

Oh well, hey hey ho ho….

I’m sorry for the language but what else do you call them? I mean the hats.

Party hacks invade Alabama

Leave it to liberals and Progressives (socialists) to read all kinds of wild interpretations into Alabama’s election. It means this and it means that…a point or two difference.

Same old lies and exaggerations and deceptions. Another overreach for giddy Democrats. Though they think it represents a sea change or momentum shift? And then one against Trump, and one big boost for Democrats. Really.

But during the election they said it all about the sex accusations. A referendum. Now that it’s over, that’s all out the window to claim it was a huge, broad message. What hacks. And of course this after Mitch spent 30 million against him.

Lights Out

The dimwitted left has lost whatever small piece of its mind that may have remained. Now they attack General Kelly and the ‘Empty Barrel’ called that name racist.

It ain’t working! Ha, Planned Parenthood issued a statement that they stand with black women and the black community. There’s an endorsement of culture for you.

So former presidents(Stripes) are having a fundraiser at Texas A&M, excuding Trump. Well, bite my asparagus! That’s bad? Exactly why we elected him.

“Deep from the Heart: The One America Appeal” is part of an effort launched last month by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom are scheduled to attend the concert Saturday.

Their thousand points of light have gone dark. All more of a political appeal.

But their incessant, incestuous lectures continue against voters and we the people?

Planned Parenthood lets us know they are still in business: (from Planet Absurd)

‘Human Rights! Human Rights is the goal! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Just in case there was any flicker of light left, PP makes sure to snuff it out.

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Really Stupid News Report

RSNR is news you only wish was fake. But, sadly, it is not.

The prodigy of obnoxious spew, Lena Dunham , now says she never had an abortion but wishes she had, apparently so she could talk about it. She really did say that.
Fox News

Lena Dunham said on the latest episode of her podcast that she wishes she’d had an abortion to fight the “stigma around this issue.”

“Something I’ve thought about a lot is the fact that there is stigma around abortion,” Dunham said on her podcast “Women of the Hour” December 14.

The “Girls” creator recounted visiting a Planned Parenthood in Texas several years ago where a young girl asked her to join a project where women share their stories of abortion.

“I sort of jumped,” Dunham said. “‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.”

It was then, Dunham said, she realized “Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt it was important that people know I was unblemished in this department.”

She added, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”

Read http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/12/20/lena-dunham-says-never-had-abortion-but-wish-had.html

Whoa…Someone in left of stupidville, please top that. I’ll be here waiting.

But then I would never refer to Lena Dunham as “unblemished” in any way.

I think she is proof that evolution has now reversed course.