DWS does it again

Here comes Debbie Wasserman Schultz playing the abortion card.

The millennials are complacent on abortion. Does she have any idea how stupid she sounds? Don’t answer that.

The Hill

For many in my generation who lived the majority of our lives with the right to make our own health care choices, there wasn’t a sense of urgency after Roe v. Wade settled our right to a safe and legal abortion. Since then, opponents worked aggressively to chip away at women’s reproductive freedom and they have awakened a sleeping giant in the millennials leading the fight in defense of the progress we’ve made,” she said. Read more

Dems can’t stand up for the 2nd amendment but they can stand up for a contorted right to privacy as a sacred right of abortion. A “Right” to kill a baby for any reason, any time — or “progress” as DWS calls it. But guns are somehow the problem in America.

After all, Hillary’s estrogen level must be running a little low, since she had to deploy Bubba Bill on the campaign trail to rally support. Now Debbie has to go browbeat the millennials for not faithfully supporting the right to murder babies. No rest for the wicked.

Are you ready for Jeb 2.0?

You might be ready for the newest technology or the latest Iphone or gadget, but I doubt you are ready for the newest Jeb. That’s if you are like most people polled who show less than room temperature for him.

Way before he announced his run I said if he’s in it then I’m loaded for bear. I wasn’t alone. But up until now the critics have been pretty quiet, almost as quiet as his supporters. There just is not any enthusiasm for him and those that dislike him as a nominee are everywhere.

Still Jeb puts forth this line that he is not in it for the short run but the long run. He also muttered something before announcing about not wanting to get dragged into current debates. (read relevant issues)(1) No, he was above that. Then he said he doesn’t want to be lumped in with his brother and father that he’s his own man. (2)

Now he makes this call it the state of his campaign speech(3)

Politico reports that Bush was meeting with family and wealthy, big donors. So it was originally supposed to be a pep rally for the third heir in the dynasty, like sort of a send off into securing the nomination, at least by best guesstimates. Only now on skid row, the same meeting looks more like he is bringing up the rear with no sign of gaining traction, he is forced to cut back on his campaign’s expenses.

“The patient is either in intensive care and in need of some good doctors who can save him or being put into hospice and we’re going to see a slow death,” said one K Street lobbyist supporting Bush.

Now infamous line

Then came the line from Bush that did make it to front page news, from same article. Sounding angry himself he says:

“I’ve got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke,” he said in South Carolina. “Elect Trump if you want that.”

Whoa, let’s stop right there. He has a lot better things to do. I guess managing director in Bloomberg’s fund was really cool compared to this, even if it was engulfed in a global abortion agenda. He can always return to that. No one forced him to do that either.

We didn’t exactly force or draft you to run. It’s all your decision. (2)The family thing you didn’t want to be known for is exactly who you are. Nothing will change you being a Bush, Jeb. America does not like dynasties. But you knew all that before you plunged into what you expected to be a rocket climb only to be burned out on the launch pad.

Now you can blame Trump or whomever you want. You won’t blame 43 or the Bush dynasty syndrome. So maybe it is a good thing, for your sake, Trump is there to blame? And you wouldn’t dare blame the establishment or RNC Party for sabotaging your run with its questionable reputation.

How bad is the dislike for Jeb Bush? Its so bad that it is just a symptom of a greater problem that doesn’t even deserve the specter of the press to cover it in detail. Yet it is emblematic of the whole establishment problem.

(1)He didn’t want to get drawn into current issue debates like all other candidates. He shouldn’t have to, he’s a governor and a Bush. We don’t play that. Other candidates should have to go through that not a favorite son. It sounded elitist and arrogant.

He didn’t want to be labeled a Bush, which is why he used only the Jeb name. Buried in hypocrisy and contradiction he keeps saying he’s his own man but proves himself a Bush at every turn. His donor list looks typical and probably a hand-me-down like everything else. He’s been planning this run for years. But don’t play the Bush card against him. More elitist arrogance, he relies on the Bush Dynasty to seal the deal.

It doesn’t seem to matter that people have moved on and said no dynasty. Establishment, dynasty, elite, insiders are not in vogue. He’s still a Bush with all the baggage. He doesn’t seem to understand the word no — so typical. We aren’t smitten any more with you for the long run than we are for the short run. Evolve away it won’t pay. 3 big strikes….

Pelosi and the war on planned parenthood

Here is a nice crap sandwich from Pelosi about her BFF, Planned Parenthood.

Oh, for the days when she was speaker of the House.
See video

She plays the woman card, plays the mother card, plays the Catholic card, plays the arrogance card all at once.

Take your ideological view and shove it? Well, considering this is their ideological baby.

Isn’t she looking really old, too? Testy…

Related: http://freebeacon.com/issues/pelosi-snaps-at-reporter-to-avoid-answering-question-about-late-term-abortion/

PPhood runs amok in body parts agenda

During the release of the video showing Planned Parenthood discussing selling body parts from babies, the left claimed to be offended. Not by what was going on but what was reported and the way it was reported/exposed. Then they played their old “context” card with the “they edited it” excuse. How much editing did it need? Well, it was a 2 hour and 42 minute meeting, so there has to be some editing. Though they did release the whole length thing if you care to watch it. And it was just as damning if not worse. But who cares about that when they can just claim, “but it was edited”. Whoopee. So what?

It helps to remember what things Leftists despise and have no patience for. They attack people buying or wearing fur coats made from animal fur. Oh, they turned that into a damnable sin. However, now when it comes to body parts of fetuses they put all their compassion behind ‘but its for research.’ Even the media is spinning the outrage to being its for research. The video made no attempt to avoid the research angle. That was not denied or hidden. In fact, “research” is what makes it appalling. But research does not mitigate PP’s agenda. MSM seems to think it does. And they don’t like fat cat salaries of figurehead CEO’s in wasteful industries.

But now the left blows up in righteous outrage over the exposure of the story but not the process or policies of abortion taking place in Planned Parenthood. So the PP 400k president, Cecile Richards came out to apologize…but only for the way the staff person spoke about the process. She went on to praise and thank tissue donors. Babies would probably be tickled that they are being labeled a “donation” and shipped off to medical research.

“Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.” — Cecile Richards in her apology (soon to become a Democrat fundraiser #StandWithPP; Cemetery of Choice).

Maybe the person did not show enough compassion in speaking about it? No, that is not really possible because abortion requires a lack of compassion for babies in the first place across the industry. Desensitization. Adding more compassion for babies would incriminate themselves and procedures. So it was not for lack of empathy which PP took issue with the staffer. By the way, it was not just a staffer, but it was the head of the national operation. And not a staffer but a doctor. So the CEO was wrong on both counts.

One of the lateral issues discussed at length was the waste issue, tagging and protocol. They talked about incineration and cost. If you mention biological tissue disposal of anything else, you’d get ethical red flags and possible outrage over it. Here we’re dealing with literal human tissue as a waste byproduct of the industry. Try to find a parallel to compare it to.

Since a major point is how callously she talked about graphic details of life and extraction procedures, with similar ease she navigated the national map of which areas are more promising for tissue mining. One she was very confident about was the St. Louis area. Go figure. While California already seems ahead in the tissue game.

This all fits Planned Parenthood’s propaganda campaign. It provides another area they can probe the patient about, donating tissue. So if they can offer them a feel-good purpose to say “the tissue is donated to help people,” it becomes an abortion selling point to assuage those ethical dilemmas and worries of “patients”. They’ve merely spun it into another positive benefit of abortion. I assume the tissue parts most in demand would be later developed, creating an incentive for later abortions. We know that. They are always looking for more selling points.

RightRing | Bullright

Climate Change cluster-muck

Bernard Goldberg has written a stimulating column on the Papal pronouncements, albeit endorsement, of Global Warming and Climate Change.

He argues against the Pope getting involved in the politics. So has Jeb Bush insinuated he does not march to that tune. Here’s an excerpt of the column hoping others check it out.

Liberals will love that message too. But here comes the uh oh alert. This was also in the encyclical on global warming: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

I’m guessing liberals weren’t too happy with that part. But abortion is also a moral issue at the core of the church’s teaching. And so is gay marriage and to some extent, Bruce Jenner too.

– See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-pope-global-warming-and-the-elusive-meaning-of-morality/

No Bernard, right, he is not going to lose sleep that you aren’t buying the snake oil.

There is a lot of this going on

The title on this article could be slightly misleading to people today. It may not be just what you expect.

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

Bradlee Dean May 15, 2015 | Western Journalism

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from. […/]

More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-only-christians-in-america-today-would-just-sing-louder/

We certainly have our problems today, and Christians nor churches are immune to the culture contributing to the apathy. Many do recommend singing a little louder. Not to make it a left and right problem, but there can be no denying the liberalization and its political influence gnawing at the foundation.

Just a little louder, please. And ignore those 55 million babies piling up, too. Climate change is a symptom of man but killing millions of babies is commendable and dignified. Preserving the habitat for the Delta Smelt is something worthy, while sacrificing babies on the altar of protecting abortion is worth fighting to preserve. Got values?

Meet the anti-religion candidate for 2016

Hillary Lets The Veil Slip: Religion Is A Problem To Be Disposed Of

Matt K. Lewis | 4/24/15 | Daily Caller

Kudos to The DC’s Kerry Picket for spotting the significance of this Hillary Clinton quote: “Laws [about reproductive health care and safe childbirth] have to be backed up with resources and political will,” Clinton said. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/hillary-lets-the-veil-slip-religion-is-a-problem-to-be-disposed-of/

Gone are the words safe legal and RARE. It’s now an attack on religion if it doesn’t conform to or accept abortion on demand – and Hillary’s standard. Yes, Hillary has come out of the closet to oppose religion, Christianity. Remember in ’08 her strategy to pander to Christians and religion. Scratch that, what we see now is her opposition to it. (not to extend to Islam, I’m sure)

Religious beliefs and biases have to be changed? Cultural codes like what, same-sex marriage and abortion? Well, now Hillary has elevated herself to Pope.

So her bigotry is out of the closet and she wants your freedom of religion in the closet — or conformed to her standards. “Resources and political will” – aka government.

Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama honors sacrifices at Selma

Obama gave a speech at the 50th anniversary of Selma’s “Bloody Sunday” march. He quoted the phrase “We shall overcome”. Some of us wish we would overcome, him.

But what about the 57 million fetuses and babies struck down in abortion since 1973?
What about their sacrifices in America, paying with their lives, blood and treasure?

  • Deprived of Life liberty and pursuit of happiness
  • Deprived of due process.
  • Deprived of their inevitable right to vote.
  • Deprived of their rights of speech, religion, and assembly.
  • Deprived of the opportunity to make change, to the culture and perception.

Obama’s Selma speech was hailed as historic and a mile-marker of time, to recognize a cause: from racism to voter rights. Yet just days before, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an important joint session speech while Obama, Biden and many of their fellow travelers could not even attend. However, Obama rushed out to say that there was nothing new in it.

So his speech at Selma was nothing new that we didn’t already know. And political.

Obama will boldly take executive action for amnesty for illegals and he unilaterally, unconstitutionally rewrites law under the guise of helping victims. But he would never take any simple action to save the unborn. In fact, he offers Planned Parenthood more money. He is the biggest friend and ally of the nation’s largest abortion provider. He swears on the altar of a decision of Roe v Wade. Now 17.3 million black babies aborted since 1973.

On this great anniversary of Selma, and Dr King, he allies himself with the downtrodden and victims, preaching social change and rights. The purpose of government is to secure our inalienable rights — not the other way around.

A couple of the quotes from his speech were: (3 excerpts from the transcript)

-“We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people.”

-“That’s what America is. Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American as others. We respect the past, but we don’t pine for it.”

-“Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person.

Because the single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. It is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.”

“We” is a powerful word, no doubt about it. But he co-opted that into a cheap campaign slogan of “yes we can” to propel his own political agenda. And he still extorts the people for his own political ends. He offers no consolation or concessions to those that disagree with his agenda. Then he closed by saying: (emphasis mine)

“We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.

May He bless those warriors of justice no longer with us, and bless the United States of America.”

We honor their sacrifices, do we? Does he honor the combined sacrificed blood of 57 million abortions? Well, only if honor means swimming in the blood of 57 million aborted babies, who were denied their right to life and due process, who weren’t even granted second-class human being status, but aborted. No amnesty or Executive action for them.

But this guy can rally people lecturing them to use their God-given rights, extorting the Selma anniversary for political purposes. Yet he just condemned Netanyahu for giving a national security speech for percieved “political” reasons calling it a distraction. Democrats poo-pooed it as political theatrics. The urgency of an emergent nuclear holocaust means as much to him as the human genocide of abortion right here in the USA. In fact, he defends the latter as a right. So how far will he go to appease Iran’s nuclear aspirations?

We shall overcome“… Oh Lord, I pray it be so!

Science fiction meets current medical debate

This is a bizarre, ethically challenging subject from a Natural News article. Apparently the development is really under way.

No longer science fiction: Aborted human fetuses harvested to grow kidney organs in rats for transplantation into human patients

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048411_organ_harvesting_aborted_babies_biotech_medicine.html

I don’t know how to even talk about this, kidneys from abortion fetal matter, grown in rats. My head is spinning and then the thought of harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses. It’s called a breakthrough? Is it more like science fiction than wonders of science?

Obama’s ‘ideology’ bandwagon running wild

Since the closest Obama will come to naming the Islamic terrorists is talking about “whatever ideology”, I’ll try to decipher some of his lofty linguistic perversion.

Allow me to remind him of the ideology that endorses wholesale slaughter, i.e. genocide, as a supreme “right”. His own ideology, which is only about 100 years in the making, but which is responsible for extinguishing over 50 million human lives and counting just in the last 40+ years. It’s now enshrined as a sacred fundamental “right”, and forces all people to swear on its altar of protecting the right to kill the unborn — using buzz words like “safe”.

He doesn’t even want babies to be born and believes in slaughtering and scorching them with saline baths in the womb. The ideology so extreme it doesn’t believe in providing measures in the event of a botched abortion. An ideology that celebrates the anniversary to “preserve” its butchery practice. Brain, meet scissors and vacuum hoses.

An ideology that claims to stand on the side of science, while boldly defying it on abortion. An ideology that believes in an “evolving, living Constitution” while devolving morality.

Or maybe the ideology which targets nuns on a mission to serve poor people. One that proudly lays bare the state’s right to target people for their “deeply held religious views,” persecute them, or lobbies to keep them from government service. One that believes America is lacking moral principles, but which attacks morality and values in every corner it can. One which stands truth on its head, and draws moral equivalences of its political opponents to tyrants, while it makes alliances with brutal regimes and tyrants.

Or we can talk about the ideology which attacks Israel as an occupier, and America as an enabler, while en masse it appeases regimes in their schemes against freedom.

The ideology that hurts and victimizes people, then claims to help them and uses them as political pawns to gain and retain power. Yet now Obama is talking about a “bankrupt” ideology. Really? Get off our “high horse”?

RightRing | Bullright

Youth take pro-life message to the street

High school students fight back against culture of death. Bold challenge at abortion clinic!

These kids are the real thing – an inspiration to all of us!
POSTED: November 10, 2014 | Mass Resistance

When it comes to standing up to the culture of death, a lot of people have given up on the youth of America. But don’t believe it!

The students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School in Still River, MA, out-perform most adult groups. They take activism right to the streets! (See their video .)

And like all moral heroes, [Principal] Br. Thomas is hated by the Left. Earlier this year, the Boston Globe published an editorial personally attacking Br. Thomas after he wrote a letter to the editor taking an uncompromising stand supporting the Parade organizers’ right to hold their parade with real Catholic values.

More: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/14d/immaculate-heart-school/index.html

They made a good video with a great message. Contrast that with the performance and message of the culture of death crowd.

Abortion is just part of motherhood

Don’t think so? Then you must be an extremist, that’s always the meme of the Left.

Pro-Abortion Author Says Abortion is Normal & “Part of Being a Mother”

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/30/14

Earlier this month, The Huffington Post published an excerpt of Katha Pollitt’s new book, “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights.” The excerpt is titled “The Abortion Conversation We Need to Have” and starts with Pollitt”s statement that abortion “is a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women.”

Then Pollitt attempts to convince her readers that abortion can be moral. She writes: “We need to see abortion as an urgent practical decision that is just as moral as the decision to have a child — indeed, sometimes more moral.

Pro-choicers often say no one is “pro-abortion,” but what is so virtuous about adding another child to the ones you’re already overwhelmed by? Why do we make young women feel guilty for wanting to feel ready for motherhood before they have a baby? Isn’t it a good thing that women think carefully about what it means to bring a child into this world — what, for example, it means to the children she already has? We tend to think of abortion as anti-child and anti- motherhood.

In media iconography, it’s the fetus versus the coat hanger: that is, abortion kills an “unborn baby,” but banning it makes women injure themselves. Actually, abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it’s not a good idea to bring them into the world.” (Emphasis added)

More: LifeNews.com

“We need to talk about ending a pregnancy as a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women — and not just modern American women either,” Pollitt said.

It’s moral and virtuous. Obviously, her biggest problem is those of us who don’t accept the Planned Parenthood paradigm. You know, who think life is the principle to stand on.

As the article points out, she is not only at odds with pro-lifers but some pro-abortion intelligentsia as well.

“Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.” — Elizabeth Williams in Salon.

One can only hope that in 2014 so many of the Liberals’ specious arguments and talking points can be ostracized, like the candidate getting booed for “war on women” Imagine? Maybe this rhetoric will become worn out, too.

Apparently the pro-abortion rationale has not reached that point, yet. (they still use them) “Normal” should have a hard time selling. “Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children.” Well, I hope we might have at least reached the saturation level.

RightRing | Bullright

Aborted justice

Federal judge halts key part of Texas abortion law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge Friday threw out new Texas abortion restrictions that would have effectively closed more than a dozen clinics statewide in a victory for opponents of tough new anti-abortion laws sweeping across the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel sided with clinics that sued over one of the most disputed measures of a sweeping anti-abortion bill signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2013. The ruling stops new clinic requirements that would have left seven abortion facilities in Texas come Monday, when the law was set to take effect.

The ruling blocks a portion of the that law would have required abortion facilities in Texas to meet hospital-level operating standards, which supporters say will protect women’s health. But Yeakel concluded the intent was only to “close existing licensed abortion clinics.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite to become governor next year, vowed to seek an immediate appeal to try to preserve the new clinic rules. Clinics called the measures a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

http://www.mail.com/news/politics/3069204-federal-judge-halts-key-texas-abortion-law.html#.7518-stage-hero1-2

The death culture will be happy about that. It seems all it takes is an activist judge. I don’t know where in law it says there must be an abortion provider X distance away? They don’t want any regulations or restrictions on abortion.

Also an update link here.

Hillary under fire

Victim Hillary at your service.

All available resources to the rescue.

 

Clinton allies pressured Dems on Benghazi

By JAKE SHERMAN and ANNA PALMER | 5/21/14 | Politico

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

“Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton world said. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary [John] Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

As Republicans continue their high-profile probe into the deadly attacks in Benghazi, Clinton is center stage. Over the next few months, Republicans on the committee will work to build a case against her, and they will attempt to haul her to Capitol Hill to testify.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-democrats-hillary-clinton-106978.html#ixzz32T5e41g7

Obfuscating they will go. Well, if Republicans are not out to make the investigation about Hillary, then Democrats are more than willing to make it all about her defense, whatever they say. So they didn’t want it to be about Hillary, but it can be about her defense.

Hillary’s testimony:

“I have to confess here in public, going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and, you know, I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So, it just isn’t something I normally jump to do.” — why Rice not her did the talk circuit after Benghazi.

Elijah Cummings now: “someone has to be the defender of the truth.”

Of course, it depends what you call the truth, doesn’t it? And when has he defended the truth about Benghazi? The truth is he defends politics.(and the politics that created Benghazi)

Now we can expect Democrats to make it about the defense of Hillary, whatever it takes. They are in to protect Hillary Clinton. They wouldn’t participate to discover the truth on Benghazi, but they will get involved to defend Hillary.

An elite power-hungry politician versus 4 dead Americans. Who wins? But that is what Benghazi was about.

RightRing | Bullright

The Hobby Lobby take away

This is one of the best takes I’ve seen on the Hobby Lobby case.

By Judie Brown

Lent is about halfway through, and we draw nearer to the day when Our Lord gave His life to save us from our sins. Yet our society daily tempts us to draw closer and embrace those sins. In fact, it is doing almost everything in its power to discard morality and God, as evidenced in today’s commentary.

Many analyses have been published following the oral arguments delivered last Tuesday to the United States Supreme Court on the two cases Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.The cases revolve around the fundamental question of whether or not a Christian company/business may or may not reflect Christian principles in its employment and other business practices. The particular subject of debate in this matter is the provision of contraceptive/abortion insurance coverage for employees when such coverage is a violation of the corporate principles of the company in question.

Can the government bully the Christian employer or not?

Apparently Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse got the answer when she was in the Supreme Court gallery during the oral arguments. She tells of an exchange between Justice Anthony Kennedy and Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “When Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes.”

The government’s position may be downright diabolical to many of us, but Jeffrey Mirus, Ph.D. explains it handily: “The old natural law tradition of the West-in which rational consistency and fairness were perhaps the most easily-grasped components-has given way to the sovereignty of the human will to remake reality according to whatever happens to be desired by those who have political, social, and cultural power.”

And that’s the rub, isn’t it? The coalescing of such man-made power united behind the common goal of tossing God out and bringing the evils of sexual promiscuity in was bound to have results similar to the Obama contraceptive mandate. It’s been building to this for years, after all.

During the same week as the oral arguments were heard, other signs of this political, social, and cultural power grab were evident in another part of the country. The University of Michigan’s Women’s Studies Department and the Institute for Research on Women and Gender are sponsoring a spring exhibit entitled “4,000 Years of Choice: A Graphic Guide to Reproductive Justice.” Among messages the exhibit imparts to visiting students is that the act of aborting a child is “a life-sustaining act.” Or to put it another way, the expectant mother who kills her child is enhancing and sustaining her own life, even if that goal costs another’s life in the process.

This twisted perspective represents reinvented reality.

It would seem that the world has gone mad. And still the list of horrors grows. For instance, we read that in Great Britain bodies of aborted babies are burned with the trash to heat modern hospitals. And in America Planned Parenthood is poised to call abortion “miscarriage management” if and when abortion itself is ever outlawed.

But in the midst of the carnage we can be buoyed by understanding the power of the human will to choose that which is rational and true rather than that which is self-serving and deceitful. Dr. Mirus puts it this way:

    “The will darkens the intellect by ordering it to cease its independent explorations in order to serve what the will desires. This is not something that we can expect to counteract naturally; it is in fact the mechanism which human nature uses to refuse cooperation with grace. Yet paradoxically the pandemic loss of the recognition of reason, and even of nature itself, must be remedied by grace. And so, in the midst of growing suffering and sacrifice for Catholics, it is not only arguments and creativity that we need, but prayer.”

The use of political power to deconstruct Christianity does have an antidote. Let us use it.

© Judie Brown

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/140401

Abortion Statistics are Shockers, or not

These Shocking Abortion Statistics Might Be Hard To Believe

A society that fails to value the most innocent among it cannot be expected to respect life at any stage.
B. Christopher Agee — February 26, 2014 — Western Journalism

The population of Mississippi is about 60 percent white – just less than 1.8 million – compared to a black population of around 1.1 million, or about 37 percent of the population. Despite the fact that there are nearly twice as many white Mississippians than blacks, however, recent reports show a troubling trend regarding the state’s abortion statistics.

Almost 72 percent of parents who decide to murder their child in the womb in the state are black. More than 39,000 abortions ended the lives of black babies in Mississippi between 1995 and 2010, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Comparatively, fewer than 15,000 white babies were killed in the same manner.

While a disproportionately high number of black mothers in the state make the heartbreaking decision to kill their children, this tragedy is hardly limited to the Magnolia State. As the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently indicated, more black children were aborted in the city than were given the opportunity to be born.

The disparity was pronounced, data shows, as 31,328 black babies were murdered, while just 24,758 were able to escape the inherent dangers of the womb.

Any child lost to the reprehensible act of abortion should outrage anyone who values the sanctity of life. The astounding impact this procedure has on the black community, however, is evidence of an unspeakable evil.

Unfortunately, this was precisely the outcome advocated by Margaret Sanger, founder of the most ubiquitous abortion provider in the nation: Planned Parenthood. Sanger’s blatant call for the extermination of black children left no question regarding her intentions. Decades later, the modern abortion industry is stealthily carrying out her plan by marketing the murderous act largely to unwed, pregnant black women.

Conservative Christian actress Patricia Heaton alluded to this realization in a recent pithy Twitter update.

Margaret Sanger gets her wish: http://t.co/BJeHQXtJmY

— Patricia Heaton (@PatriciaHeaton) February 22, 2014

While the abortion rate has cooled slightly in recent years, it is imperative for social conservatives to remain dedicated to the fight for life. A society that fails to value the most innocent among it cannot be expected to respect life at any stage.

Perhaps the violent culture of today’s inner city has roots in the deadly precedent set in the black community by rampant abortion.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/shocking-abortion-statistics-might-hard-believe/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NewMainEmail

And so, after careful analysis, all seems to be going according to plan — pardon the pun — Planned Parenthood plan that is. How’s that for “progressive”? And how about Obama’s iconic word, “Forward”? “Lean forward”…or be pushed.

The “progressive” movement is obsessed with “saving the environment”, a lizard, a spotted owl, a habitat, eggs, a spawning ground for fish. But their agenda for legalized murder, slaughter of babies is called “choice”.

You know, the folks who advocate for something called “safe abortion services” — they call that “reproductive health”.

Look at the numbers: National Review

Big H/T to Pepp for the article.

RightRing | Bullright

Ad the media won’t show

Timothy 4:2
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron.”

Evangelist Charles Finney wrote: ” You see that many persons mistake a seared for an approving conscience. They profess to be conscientious in what they are doing, evidently meaning by this that they feel no compunction in doing as they do, while it is manifest that they have not the peace of God, the deep approbation of conscience in the course they are pursuing. Now the absence of the approving smiles of conscience should teach them, that they are laboring under a delusion in supposing themselves to act in accordance with the dictates of conscience.” [1]

Washington Examiner –April 14, 2013:

Tim Carney: Abortionist’s case raises troubling questions

“Sue,” as the grand jury report calls the mother, came to Gosnell’s gory abortion clinic at 9 in the morning. Gosnell’s staff induced labor. At 11 p.m., Sue finally gave birth to her son. Gosnell’s assistant Kareema Cross testified that the boy was 18 or 19 inches long, “nearly the size of her own 6 pound, 6 ounce, newborn daughter.”

Then Kermit Gosnell allegedly did what he always does after he delivers a baby: He murdered it. “The doctor just slit the neck,” Cross testified. Snipping the back of newborns’ necks was allegedly how Gosnell aborted babies after delivering them.

But with “Sue’s” son — Baby Boy A, the grand jury report called him — Gosnell apparently failed. The baby kept twitching in the little plastic box where Gosnell had discarded him, according to testimony. Gosnell allegedly tried to falsely dismiss this as “reflexes.”

In his first U.S. Senate race, Obama used Carhart’s procedure as a fundraising pitch. In a 2004 campaign mailing, Michelle Obama tried to rally the donor base by explaining how Republicans were trying to ban partial-birth abortion, “a legitimate medical procedure,” as Michelle put it.

The most substantive difference between the partial-birth abortions on which Obama fundraised and Gosnell’s abortions is this: Dr. Gosnell did the snipping outside of the mother’s birth canal, while Dr. Carhart reaches his scissors inside the woman’s vagina to snip the baby’s spine. [Entire article]

So as Michelle would characterize it — Gosnell should have her as a defense witness — he was only performing a “legitimate medical procedure”. I know what the problem is, these details are bad enough to make most people sick. To think Obama wants to defend that heaps disgust on him. Why didn’t he weigh in on this murder?

I mean he intervened in a private, local enforcement incident in Mass. When someone announces a gay marriage, he calls to congratulate them. He makes comments about a pending SCOTUS decision. He comments on their decisions after. But he remained silent on Gosnell, and yet gave a speech at a Planned Parenthood convention telling them he will fight for abortion, and adding “God bless you”.

Finney again:

[1] “A SEARED CONSCIENCE.–No. 2. (May, 1841)

TEXT–1 Tim. 4:2: “Having their conscience seared with a hot iron.”

” We see what the spiritual state of those must be who manifest an unwillingness to have this doctrine true. There are those who manifest the greatest want of candor in weighing the evidences in its favor, and seem disposed to resort to any shift to disprove it. It were easy to show that their writings and their sayings have every mark of an utter unwillingness to have this doctrine true. Now I ask what must their spiritual state be? What is the state of their conscience? How much do they sympathize with the inhabitants of heaven in regard to the exceeding sinfulness of sin? Do they feel horror-stricken at the idea of sinning against God? Do they know what it is to have the perspiration flow like rain when they fall into the slightest sin? Are they crying out in their prayers for a deliverance? No, but they are denouncing those that do, and who are reaching after and expecting a full salvation, as heretics and fanatics, and as explaining away the law of God!”

 

Ad by: https://www.heroicmedia.org/20weeks

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.