In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy and laughable lack of self awareness, “feminists” have decided the best way to achieve “equal rights” (that they refuse to understand they already have) and not be seen as “sex objects” is to parade around topless in public. After all, men do it! It’s only fair! And according to low functioning “progressive” leftists, fairness is not only a real concept, but also something we can legislate. So don’t you dare demand anyone behave with a shred of common decency because, dammit, women have the right to be naked in public. It’s all about feelings, folks. And these women are having a crisis of emotion over the tyranny of t-shirts.

New York City police officers have been instructed not to arrest women who’ve chosen to bare it all from the waist up in public, but have instead been told to disperse any crowds that may form around said topless women, even though crowds shouldn’t form because “progressives” are telling us that boobs in your face on Madison Avenue are totally normal because shut up, Woman Hater.

Proponents shriek this is a good step toward eliminating “unconstitutional gender discrimination”, proclaiming little more than the fact that they’ve never bothered to read the Constitution. In their defense though, when would they have time to educate themselves on our actual rights as Americans when they’re so busy creating “rights” they wish we had? Reality is hard, and oftentimes unfair. Is no one thinking of the female nipple’s self esteem?

There’s even a group of women who’ve banded together to organize protests in favor of lewdness and indecency and they’ve managed to summon the audacity to compare it to the right to vote. They call themselves “Go Topless” (creativity is hard) and they fancy themselves modern day suffragettes, but this time they’re marching for a much nobler cause than votes. They’ve decided that a woman’s value should be placed on her sexuality, that she’s no more than the sum of her parts. Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be so proud.

I’m a fan of equality and I’m a fan of boobs. I have both. I’ve used both to my advantage. But, and call me old fashioned if you wish, if modern “feminists” have decided that my having to wear a shirt in public means I’m a victim of a patriarchal society, I will happily embrace that “oppression”. Because fairness.

Before I really get going here, let me just say I’m sorry the “progressives” have abandoned you, that they’re pretending to condemn your bloody work. That must be hard; after all, they supported you for decades until your gruesome activities were brought to the light and started to harm their “babies are parasitic clumps of cells” narrative. Of all the things you so richly deserve, being betrayed by those who continue to support your fetus jihad isn’t one of them.

Anyway. This may sound odd coming from me, as I have spent my entire adult life fighting ferociously for the rights of the lives you so happily exterminated, but I do want to tell you “thank you”. Seriously.

A freezer in Gosnell’s clinic stuffed full of human remains.

Thank you, Kermie, for showing America the realities of the “choice” many of them support. As you know, the Left works tirelessly to cover up the realities of kill houses like yours. They operate a pro-abortion propaganda machine that rivals anything put out by Kim Jong-Un. And just like the North Koreans, Americans who favor abortion eat up the lies like candy, too brainwashed and blind to notice the foul taste in their mouths. But then your crimes against humanity were brought to light and fence sitters especially were forced to examine exactly what it was they were championing. The far Left, of course, pretends to condemn you while continuing to support exactly what you did and how you did it, but those monsters are unreachable anyway. You’ve opened the eyes of misguided, but otherwise rational individuals. So thank you.

Thank you for demonstrating what thinking people have always known, that the “war on women” comes from the Left. You took advantage of poor, vulnerable women in crisis situations. You maimed them. You gave them diseases. You performed medical procedures on them surrounded by filth. You even killed them.  You showed America that abortion isn’t about “womens’ rights”, but about profit at the expense of innocence. Along these same lines, you also showed the many what the few have always known; it’s the Left and specifically abortion proponents who are perpetrators of extreme racism. Not only were the majority of the babies you slaughtered black, but when you had the occasional white patient, you treated her infinitely better than her minority counterparts because, what was it you said? “That’s the way the world works”? Something like that. I’m paraphrasing. But the point is, Margaret Sanger would be proud. The Left is proud. You revealed their true colors. So thank you.

Thank you for being the poster boy of media bias. Your case was hardly a blip on the mainstream media’s radar because the (hopefully) fatal damage you did to the Left’s pro-abortion/anti-life agenda really terrified them. The water they carry for Obama and his brand of far left ideology is already so heavy, and then you came along and added obstacles that may well end up to be insurmountable. So thank you.

Mostly, thank you for finally being arrogant/careless/evil enough to get caught. You are a modern day Dr. Mengle. Yours is the kind of evil that makes Satan himself scratch his head in confused awe. While it took far too long and far too many women and babies suffered and died under your heinous “care”, at least your reign of terror has been stopped and now people are aware of how your counterparts operate. Your loathsome practices may be the wakeup call America needed to begin reversing its cavalier attitude toward the extermination of innocent life. So thank you.

Give my regards to Satan when you’re rotting in hell next to Hitler,

Stevie J. West

As women, we tend to be very hard on ourselves. What do other people see in us?

This video sponsored by Dove shows a group of women what people see in them. A very eye-opening video.

YouTube Description:

Women are their own worst beauty critics. Only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful. At Dove, we are committed to creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety. So, we decided to conduct a compelling social experiment that explores how women view their own beauty in contrast to what others see.

If 20 pregnant women and 20 pregnant dogs were lined up before a firing squad and fired on, which group’s potential murder would the Left be most horrified over; dogs or human beings?

By the way the Left is ignoring Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell’s torturous murders of born children in his abortion clinic; I have to assume the Left’s horror only extends to the killing of animals and not human beings—unless of course it’s the killing of an Islamic terrorist, then all hell will break loose and we’ll see riots in the streets for the dead terrorist.

Maybe that’s why the Left is ignoring Kermit Gosnell: He’s a medical terrorist who performed abortions in the most heinous manner imaginable.

Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell regularly delivered live babies and murdered them. This news is not important to the left wing, pro-abortion mainstream media, because Dr. Gosnell did not slaughter kittens and puppies.

Gosnell “catered to women” who could not get abortions legally, because they were 20 weeks to six months or more into their pregnancies.

Gosnell’s abortion procedures went beyond anything conceived of. Anyone who reads the “Report Of The Grand Jury” will think they are reading the script to a violent horror movie:

This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.

Making things worse, Gosnell’s employees were not nurses or doctors; they pretended to be licensed medical practitioners, making diagnoses and performing medical procedures only licensed, schooled medical doctors or nurses can perform.

Despite screams of pain from mothers and birthed babies being tortured to death, these so-called “doctors” ignored it all. The horrific style was part of “Gosnell’s approach…,” “keep volume high, expenses low – and break the law.”

According the Grand Jury:

“Gosnell’s approach, whenever possible, was to force full labor and delivery of premature infants on ill-informed women. The women would check in during the day, make payment, and take labor-inducing drugs. The doctor wouldn’t appear until evening, often 8:00, 9:00, or 10:00 p.m., and only then deal with any of the women who were ready to deliver.”

If that wasn’t enough:

Many of them gave birth before he even got there. By maximizing the pain and danger for his patients, he minimized the work, and cost, for himself and his staff. The policy, in effect, was labor without labor. There remained, however, a final difficulty. When you perform late-term ‘abortions’ by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.’

Just imagine veterinarians performing such vile procedures on animals. Animals rights activists already scream bloody murder over pet shops and “puppy mills,” but never put their efforts against abuse into fighting the murder of human beings, specifically babies born in abortion clinics where doctors order their murders.

According to investigators:

Medical equipment – such as the defibrillator, the EKG, the pulse oximeter, the blood pressure cuff – was generally broken; even when it worked, it wasn’t used. The emergency exit was padlocked shut. And scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains. It was a baby charnel house.

Imagine veterinarians joking about killing animals the way Dr. Gosnell joked about murdering born babies:

[One baby boy] was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could ‘walk me to the bus stop.’

PETA and the Left would march on Gosnell’s home no doubt calling for his “disposal.” But then again, Gosnell is an animal, so don’t look for the Left to stand up against him.

At Gosnell’s clinic, there was “Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

Gosnell’s “nurse” watched her boss, who never hid his violent practice, murder babies born six months old and up daily, never once dialing 911 or going to police, begging they raid Gosner to prevent murder. She too is on trial for murder and faces life in prison.

The Grand Jury Report states Gosnell induced labor on every woman, causing as much pain as possible to mother and child, tearing open cervix’s, colons, puncturing uterus’s, ripping intestines, leaving parts of fetuses inside mothers, procedures so painful and cheap (Gosnell liked cheap procedures) they caused convulsive seizures, causing women to fall of operating tables onto their heads, never receiving care, and much more.

Gosnell’s staff said he found the screams of mothers and children annoying.

There is another side to Gosnell’s eugenics horrors the media ignores: Gosnell is black man who purposely mistreated impoverished black women in the most heinous fashion possible. Yet, when one white patient entered his clinic, he used the utmost care. 

The only reason Gosnell was caught is because police raided his clinic for selling illegal prescriptions: Money flowed into the clinic via “fake prescriptions that brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.” Otherwise the racist Gosnell and his “doctors” would still be torturing poor black women and their birthed babies.

Why isn’t this racist, murderous Gosnell making left wing media headlines? He’s a black abortionist who murdered poor black babies.

Why doesn’t the Left care about that racism? Because Gosnell was accomplishing the century long progressives plan: Population control to eliminate poor children from society, furthering Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project to exterminate the black race, and allowing only the fittest and wealthiest among us to survive.

If Dr. Kermit Gosnell was a veterinarian who slaughtered animals, the Left would demand his life. But he murdered black children, so he did the world a favor.

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

It’s  dangerous for vulnerable women to carry guns, especially if there are rapists in the vicinity!  Frightened women might prevent rapes from happening by shooting rapists, and then where will society be!

Women only need rape whistles to fight off rapists!

The above statement is not hyperbole, it’s the ludicrous thinking of the Left, who claim to champion women’s rights but do not want women protecting themselves against violent attackers, who, more often than not, don’t stop at rape but end the violent crime with bloodshed.

If however, you survive rape and have the nerve to complain that a gun would have stopped your attacker—had you been allowed to carry it on the college campus you attend— you will be attacked in a war against women by leftists who disgustingly assume the ONLY rights women should have to protect  their bodies must be limited ONLY to birth control and abortion.

Case in point: Gun-owning Colorado college student Amanda Collins was raped on the Colorado college campus she attends because the university has a “Gun Free Zone” policy prohibiting students from carrying firearms. Miss Collins’ gun was locked in her car when she was violently assaulted.  When the discussion of rape on campus was brought to a debate at the Colorado Legislature, Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar had the audacity to tell American women:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses, this is true. And universities have been faced with that situation for a long time, that’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles, because you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at.

In that case, rape whistles are nothing more than Christmas bells for violent criminals: Every time you hear a rape whistle, another rapist gets his way!

As to Amanda Collins, she had a very good idea of whom she would be shooting: A rapist!

Rape whistles and call boxes did not save Amanda Collins from rape. Had Collins been allowed to carry her locked-in-a-car firearm on campus, she certainly would have had all odds in her favor to ward off the violent attack she must live with for the rest of her life.

Salazar went on to tell women:

And you [women with guns] don’t know if you feel like you’re going to be raped, or you feel like someone’s been following you around, or that you feel like you’re in trouble, or when you may actually not be, but you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody…

In other words, women do not have rights to assume that a strange man following them is a rapist or murderer. Also, we women are idiots whenever we claim we are being followed by a stranger or stalked by a crazy ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.

Ladies, it’s simply our over-active female minds telling us violent men exist and seek to physically harm women despite overwhelming rape statistics.

We over-sensitive women should follow Ebony’s  Zerlina Maxwell’s  advice–train rapist to stop raping:

I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there…If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.

Give me a break! The best way to train rapists not to rape is women with firearms.

Of course we women have no right to pull guns on strange men following us, demanding they get the hell away when trying to grab us and push us into cars or drag us into a dark allies to rape us and possibly end that violent crime with murder. No, we must ask thugs: “Would you please hold off your attack for one moment while I retrieve my rape whistle from my purse?”

Perhaps we women should ask the rapist/murder to hold our purses while we retrieve the cell phone to dial 9-11. Hey, I’m sure some rapists are happy to accommodate before the violent act.

As to Salazar’s bogus claims about gun safety, economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime  John Lott writes that U.S. states with conceal and carry laws have had

[L]arge drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.

Leftists could care less about facts; they are more concerned with distorting the truth in order to protect violent criminals against victims.

What is disgusting about this entire women and guns debate is Democrats are the instigators of the “War on Women.” Democrats insist women are not treated equally, they insist women are victims of a male-dominated society, yet Democrats do not want women fighting off violent men.

More proof: A female Democrat further violated Amanda Collins by claiming her gun never would have stopped the rapist and she is better off for having her firearm locked in her car.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak told Collins, a skilled martial artist who could not overpower the large brute with her physical skills that:

Statistics are not on your side even if you had had a gun…And chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly uses it against you

A shocked Collins responded to the female legislator saying:

Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there. Had I been carrying a gun, he wouldn’t have known that I had my weapon. I know without a doubt in my mind, at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm.

Progressives scream “War on Women” when it comes to birth control not being doled out freely to every woman, yet these government programers don’t want women owning guns, shooting rapists and would-be murderers, and preventing crimes against women.

Rapists have waged war on women for thousands of years, but American Leftists are in fact defending rapists when they tell women that guns won’t protect women, rape whistles will.

Hudak and Salazar’s heartless answers are typical of the anti-gun fascists. I’m surprised they didn’t tell Miss Collins the best thing we women can do is to make sure we receive free birth control, that way if we are raped, we won’t get pregnant after rapists physically and mentally ravage our lives.

In theory, everything should go Republicans’ way. The incumbent president’s party usually loses seats – sometimes big time – in midterm elections, and in 7-8 winnable states Democratic incumbents are either retiring (Harkin in IA, Rockefeller in WV, possibly Johnson in SD), running in red states (AK, LA, AR), or underfunded (NH). There are also other potential, though less feasible, pickups (e.g. OR and MT). Also, the economy shows no sign of recovering, will almost certainly not recover as long as Obama is in office, and Obama has veered far to the left. By any standard, this should be an easy election for Republicans to win.

But it won’t be, because extremist Republicans and the fringe of the conservative movement, including the Club For Growth of the Democratic Caucus, have decided to fire their arrows at good, mainstream conservatives and moderate Republicans instead of the real enemy (the Democrats).

The party and the country will both pay a heavy price if these extremists succeed.

We’ve seen this happen several times already. In 2010, when most Americans were angry at Obama and the oversized Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Tea Party and the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus still managed to throw away several winnable Senate seats by supporting extremist against mainstream Republicans in states like Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado. They gave the GOP doomed-to-lose candidates: Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Ken Buck.

In 2012, winning back the Senate was going to be more difficult than in a midterm year, given that Obama was on the ballot and many Democrats rode his coattails. Still, Republicans had a chance, given that they were only 4 seats shy of a majority.

Yet, Republicans lost badly. On net, instead of winning seats, they actually lost two, growing the Democratic caucus to 55 members. This was primarily due to extremists like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, both of whom were supported by the Tea Party and both of whom threw away otherwise perfectly winnable seats. Richard Lugar, who would’ve otherwise been a shoo-in for reelection, was defeated in a primary. In Missouri, Todd Akin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by opening his mouth about abortion and rape and saved Claire McCaskill, who would’ve otherwise been easily defeated.

Their idiocy not only cost them their races, but also cost other Republicans theirs, because their Democratic opponents reminded the voters that however nice Scott Brown, Tommy Thompson, and George Allen were, they were members of the party of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

Those disasters should’ve been a wakeup call that Republicans must, from now on, nominate only electable – THE most electable – candidates and avoid bloody primary battles.

But it’s clear that Republicans, like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. And pseudoconservative publications like the American Spectator continue to fool Republicans into thinking that the reason Republicans lost was because they weren’t “conservative enough” and that “conservatism” and “communicating the message better” will suffice to win future elections. But that’s jut an easy, lame excuse for avoiding the unpleasant fact that the voters simply rejected you.

And so, fooled by the likes of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Lord of AmSpec, and Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ, Republicans continue to delude themselves and to oppose the only candidates who stand a chance of winning future elections. And that puts their chance of winning back the Senate and retaining the House in grave peril.

In West Virginia, the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus opposes mainstream moderate conservative Shelley Capito, as if she were a Massachusetts liberal. In Georgia, extremists have just forced incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss – a solid across-the-board fiscal, defense, and social conservative – to retire under the threat of a primary challenge. And who’s the favorite for the GOP nomination? Rep. Paul Broun, a Todd Akin clone who believes that the evolution theory – proven scientifically over and over again – is a lie “from the pits of hell”.

In Iowa, likewise, extremists have given incumbent Rep. Steve King – who has never won anything beyond his solidly red district – the upper hand in the race against solid conservative (but not extremist) Tom Latham, who is being smeared with gossip that he’s “close to Speaker John Boehner” – a toxic name among Republicans. In Louisiana, former Rep. Jeff Landry may win the nomination, although thankfully in the Bayou State, the most electable candidate, Rep. Bill Cassidy, is also the favorite to win the nomination.

So in at least four states, extremists are already at work to deny the nomination to the most electable candidates, even though all of them are mainstream conservatives and haven’t done anything egregious to deserve a primary challenge. This is more than enough to deny the GOP a Senate majority for the third time in a row. In the worst case, the GOP could lose seats again.

On a positive note, popular former SD Gov. Mike Rounds has an at least 50% chance of winning in his state – whether Tim Johnson runs for reelection or not – and in Arkansas, Republicans have a deep bench, although it remains to be seen if the strongest GOP candidate, Rep. Tom Cotton, runs for the Senate here. If he does, he’ll likely win. And in Alaska, disastrous 2010 candidate Joe Miller can’t find enough supporters even in his own party, so the GOP should defeat Mark Begich (D-AK), especially if he fails to block the move of a fighter wing out of Eielson AFB.

Republicans also have a pickup opportunity in NH, because incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen has raised only a pathetic $300,000 for reelection. A well-funded Republican challenger who doesn’t have to undergo a bloodying primary battle would be a strong candidate.

But Republicans can win the Senate back only if everything goes their way. That means no protracted, bloodying, divisive primary battles (they only help Democrats) and no more unelectable, fringe candidates.

No more Sharron Angles. No more Christine O’Donnells. No more Ken Bucks. No more Todd Akins. No more Richard Mourdocks. No more Paul Brouns. No more Steve Kings.

Republicans can win the Senate back in 2014 – but ONLY if they keep the Tea Party and the Club for Growth of the Democratic Caucus at bay.

Folks, let’s focus on the REAL enemy: the Democrats.

There are only a few places in the country where a mother can have an abortion in the third trimester. Maryland remains one of those states.

According to a press conference held by the Maryland Coalition for Life in Germantown, MD it was announced that a 29-year-old woman died at a local hospital as a direct result of complications from a third trimester abortion. According to LifeNews.com the woman was at the end of a four day abortion procedure when she developed chest pain and other medical symptoms. The family took her to a local Emergency Room where she subsequently died. It is reported that the Maryland Examiner’s Office will investigate this death.

Contrary to political jargon abortions are not without significant risk. U.S. mortality rates per 100,000 abortions as are 14.0 for 16-20 weeks and 18.0 for after 21 weeks. Mortality results for second and third trimester abortions climb steeply each week of gestation. Per 100,000 abortions, the relative risk of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 at 13–15 weeks of gestation, 29.5 at 16-20 weeks, and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks.

[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?

At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.

Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.

For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?

Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.

America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness

By John Renken

(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively.  I don’t think for a second  that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground.  The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!

… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation.  When we look at our educational  system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The  Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in  high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look  up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood  have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood,  rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are  being raised without their biological dads.

Read full article here.

The goodness of Christian teachings attracted people to the new faith, prolonging their lives through better healthcare and by sustaining their procreation. The Roman state took a hit for being barbaric persecutors, serving only to attract attention to the appeal of Christianity.

We learn from history. It’s the one thing that doesn’t change. If little else can be agreed, most will agree that Jesus Christ was – and still is – a controversial historical figure. Persecuting Christians was the rule of the day. This is drawn from the most convincing evidence of a variety of sources (see “More Reading” below). Click map to enlarge for the Roman Empire in circa 300 A.D.

Background Recap

Christianity, the Roman Empire & Israel’s Place in It - Christianity began in Judae (Israel) with the birth of Jesus Christ in 1 A.D. and it spread through the eastern Middle East. Jesus was a Jew who taught God’s new covenant (New Testament). He was crucified by the Romans about 30 A.D. because His teachings and popularity posed a threat to the Roman state.

Roman religion was a variation of Greek mythology with gods residing over every undertaking. When Christianity hit the scene it was scattered and underestimated as an insignificant sect of the Jews. Christians believe Jesus Christ fulfilled the Jewish Torah’s (Old Testament) predictions of their promised Messiah (Savior). Constantine’s monumental influence on Christianity resulted in the first Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church.

I take exception to some representation made by this video but it’s a good foundation for how unlikely Christianity was to survive; and how Christianity overcame those odds. Constantine enters at minute 38:00. This depicts the development of Christianity, how Christians were socially misunderstood and how the faith flourished regardless of political persecutions under many Roman emperors leading up to Constantine.

Courtesy of XIxItalianoxIX on YouTube

Christianity Flourished Underground

Many Jews converted to Christianity. It was a faith open to all people regardless of religious beliefs or bloodline. Its teachings not only attracted people of various statures in life, it prolonged life through better healthcare and it sustained Christians’ procreation (summarized about minute 25:00).

Christianity flourished despite if not because of intense Roman oppression and horrific persecutions. Women played a particularly important role in protecting the survival of Christianity (about minute 21:00). Ironically the very nature of Roman persecutions intended to stifle Christianity brought more believers to it (minutes 17:28 and 25:00).

During the brief 50-years between 250-300 A.D. Christianity grew from about 1-million Christians in a population of 60-million to about 6-million Christians in roughly the same count 50-years later. Christians had become a power that could threaten the Roman state.

In 303 A.D. Roman Emperor Diocletian made a last effort to strike back at Christians and return Rome to its days of mythical gods and traditional religion. He demanded Christians adhere to the Roman tradition of sacrifice made to mythological gods. Roman sacrifices could be of incense, liquids, plants, or animals. It was a complex ritual performed in the presence of the community in front of the temple or in a private place in the house close to an alter.

Diocletian ordered all Christian writings and places of worship destroyed (minute 35:20). Christians lost their rights, they were imprisoned and many were tortured for not adhering to Roman laws. Being eaten by lions in the Coliseum or burning and crucifixion were common methods of death. Many Christians were imprisoned.

Some Christians gave in to the intimidation but it’s estimated about 5,000 died rather than betray their faith. Witnessing Christians’ willingness to die for their faith demonstrated impressive dedication. The Roman state took a hit for being barbaric persecutors of the devout, serving only to draw sympathy and attract attention to the appeal of Christianity.

Constantine The Great

I began this study with initial impressions of Constantine as a cruel Roman emperor. In further research I came to see him as a devout believer and benevolent servant of the Christian faith. Perhaps his conversion to Christianity changed him; perhaps initial impressions were tied to the era’s horrific persecutions of Christians or the bloody nature of Roman conquerers. The fact remains, some historical accounts are not kind to Constantine. I came to admire his devotion to Christianity.

Flavius Valerius Constantinus (Constantine) was born 280 A.D. He ruled from 324-337 after sharing a stint with Lucinius from 306-324. The Roman Empire’s successes had always hinged on their military might and knack for conquest. Their leaders’ names were made by winning wars.

Constantine’s father, Constantinus, was from an important Roman family. His mother was the daughter of a tavern-inn owner. When the Roman Empire was split into four parts in 293 A.D. Diocletian made Constantine’s father the emperor of Gaul and Britain. Constantine married Fausta, the daughter of Maximian who was another trusted officer and friend of Diocletian.

In 305 A.D. Diocletian stepped down and Constantine, despite being senior in rank, found himself a virtual prisoner of Galerius who’d served Diocletian well during his reign of Christian persecution. In 306 an overly confident Galerius let Constantine return to his father on a campaign to Britain. When his father died that same year the troops hailed Constantine as the new Augustus of Rome.

Galerius refused to accept Constantine’s new status but he faced strong support for Constantine as the son of Constantinus and because his wife’s father was the influential Maximian who’d returned to power in Rome. Galerius was forced to acknowledge Constantine as the new Augustus. While still residing in Constantine’s court Maximian turned against him in favor of his own son, Maxentius.

Some accounts describe Constantine as an autocratic ruler, a tyrant of absolute power who spent an abundance of money on military campaigns and who surrounded himself with pompous splendor. It was suggested that Constantine murdered his father-in-law (as well as his wife and son). Other accounts say his father-in-law, Maximian, committed suicide when Constantine revolted against him with no mentions of his wife and son.

At a conference of all ceasers and Augusti in 308 A.D. they demanded Constantine relinquish his title but he refused. About 310 A.D. Constantine decided to take Rome. He led a small army to the Alps for an important battle outside of Rome on the Tiber River, against his rival Maxentius, emperor of Rome from 278-312.

According to Roman historian Eusebius (263-339 A.D.), Constantine had a vision while staring up at the sky the day before his Tiber River battle. He reportedly saw a flaming cross above the sun with the words “In hoc signo vinces” (“in this sign you will conquer“). The video depicts this at about minute 38:55.

Constantine gave credit for his Alps’ military success to the Christian faith and is said to have entered Rome with Maxentius’s head on a pike. About 315 A.D. just outside the Roman Coliseum where hundreds of Christians lost their lives Constantine erected the triumphal “Arch of Constantine” and took control of the western half of the Roman Empire (about video minute 38:35).

Constantine inscribed his Arch with the third line of it reading “instinctu divinitatis,” meaning “to the inspiration of a divinity.” Christians were sure which ‘divinity’ Constantine meant and that led to free confidence in spreading their faith. Constantine’s embracement of Christianity had begun its launch into the official religion of the Roman Empire. [Click images to enlarge.]

Christianity under Constantine peaked with sweeping changes pulsating throughout the Roman Empire. He gave tax exemptions to Christian clergy and major amounts of land and money were given to the church. Christianity gained both physical and financial power. Under Constantine’s rule the church also became more efficient and centralized and his organizational skills ensured doctrinal decisions were reconciled.

Constantine’s bishops organized the new covenant texts and he relied on historians of the day to advise him which books were appropriate to become a part of the testaments and which were set aside. He is also given credit for distributing the first 50-copies of the New Testament. Universal enforcement of church decisions began with Constantine when he gave powers to and for the first time officially recognized Rome’s bishop.

[Abbreviated Rendering]: In 331 C.E. the Roman Emperor Constantine sent a letter, the text of which has survived, to Bishop Eusebius asking him to arrange for the production of fifty bibles. Books were to be skillfully executed copies of “the divine scriptures.” Eusebius was an advisor and confidant of the Emperor, widely regarded as the principal architect of the political philosophy of Constantine’s reconstituted empire. He knew Constantine was concerned about the unity of the church and the unity of the state. The inclusiveness of Athanasius‘* list has the look of political accommodation, resolving disagreement about the canonical status of Hebrews and Revelation by including both. Their publication was palpable evidence of the unity of the church and hence the unity of the empire. (*Athanasius was a theologian, ecclesiastical statesman & Egyptian leader.)

Constantine is described as becoming Pope-like and calling the first general ecumenical (worldwide) council in 325 A.D. to settle questions of church doctrine. The most important decision attributed to them is claimed the adoption of Nicene creed: The assertion that denial of Christ’s divinity was heresy and is said to have become the basis of all church doctrine from that time forward. Anyone who departed from the creed was branded a heretic. Commonly accepted events of this Council are held as misconceptions by some:

[Abbreviated Rendering] Constantine did not define the canon of the New Testament at the first Council of Nicaea in 325AD – in fact, the Council did not make mention of the Biblical canon. It was already defined by common use by the early 2nd century in the form in which it is still found in Catholic Bibles. Another little known fact is the Emperor Constantine had no voting power at the council – he was there merely as an observer. The full texts of the 20 Canons issued by the Council survive, as well as ancient summaries of the texts, and the famous Nicene Creed.

Christians widely accept Apostle Peter as the first leader of the Roman Catholic Christian Church, which is traced back to the Gospel of Matthew:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:  and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19)

Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea; and Augustine, a bishop and theologian, are said to have preserved successors of the Rome bishop:

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD

“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.”

Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD

“For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.”

The ‘City of Constantine,’ Constantinople

By 323 A.D. Constantine had unified the Roman Empire and brought it under his control by defeating his eastern co-emperor and rival, Licinius. The once imperial capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was Byzantium, named after its legendary King Byzas with settlers going back to the Greek city-state of Megara around 667 B.C.

About 330 A.D. Constantine changed the name of Byzantium to “Constantinople,” meaning “City of Constantine.” Today the city is called Istanbul, a name it has maintained since its change in 1923.

[Abbreviated Rendering: Click to enlarge image.] “Stanbulin,” (Greek for “to the city”) once commonly found on road signs to the capital, was punned by devout Turks into Islambol, where “Islam abounds.” The names Islambol and Konstantiniye were used interchangeably in Ottoman documents up until the empire’s demise in 1923. Westerners continued to refer to the city as Constantinople well into the 20th century. In the 19th century, however, the city’s large foreign expatriate community took to calling the old city Stamboul. Western accounts of the old city during this period make regular references to the name.

According to a popular story for many years, the Byzantines did not refer to the city by its actual name, but, because of it size, simply as ‘Polis’ (the City), and when they wanted to say ‘to the City’, they said ‘eist enpolin’ (is-tin-polin), which was the (possible) origin of the name ‘Istanbul’. Recent research has shown that the name ‘Istanbul’ was used if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the 11th century and that the Turks knew the city by this name.

About the same time that Constantine changed the city’s name German tribes began invading across Europe. Europe plunged into the “Dark Ages” causing economic and political turmoil. Language barriers of the less expressive, dying Latin language and the more creative, predominant Greek led to the West’s eventual religious estrangement from the East. By the 11th century this resulted in “The Great Schism,” a separation between Constantine’s Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orhtodox.

Constantine died in 337 A.D. and realizing he was on his deathbed he asked to be baptized. After Constantine died the Roman Empire was divided up among his sons and Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond.

Paganism was banned at the end of 4th century and restrictions were placed on Judaism. The power and the wealth of the church grew quickly with the help of faithful Christians who donated their land and other possessions. By the beginning of the 6th century Christianity had 34 million followers and they made up half of the Roman Empire.

First Article in this Series: Christianity, the Roman Empire & Israel’s Place in It

More Reading: YouTube, Map of Roman Empire, God’s Word First, Constantine The Great, Facts And Details, About.com, Rome Tour Guide, Arch of Constantine, Encyclopedia, Britannica I, Encyclppedia Britannina II, Catholic Apologetics, Wikia.com, Got Questions.org, Nestorian.org, Sephardic Studies/Instanbul, Westar Institute, Misconceptions of the Bible, The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea

Many Americans who watch the Miss America Pageant no doubt wonder if intelligence is still a qualification for young women entering beauty pageants. It appears as long as beauty queens are left-winged and give the desired politically correct answers leftist judges demand, beauty overcomes inglorious stupidity.

I’m speaking of the the latest Miss America Pageant and the beautiful Miss California, who wowed judges with her anti-gun political correctness, but made the “Idiots Hall of Fame” headline’s with her answer to euthanasia: “That’s a vaccine, right?”

My first thought was: “If Euthanasia is a vaccine, strangulation is the best Asthma medication!”

At first I thought Miss California’s brain was perhaps crushed by years of over-weight pageants crowns, until I realized Miss California’s seemingly ignorant answer is 100% correct.

No, I’m not giving stupidity the thumbs up; I’m looking within Miss California’s answer. The young woman has no idea she stated an historical fact: Vaccines do kill diseases, but euthanasia is not about eliminating AIDS or the Flu, it’s about extermination, and you can’t find a better vaccine to kill off mankind than euthanasia.

Obviously Miss California was not joking when she responded. She truly has no idea what euthanasia or eugenics projects are, and for that, the young woman needs to read books containing words and study what she is reading. But despite proving herself ill-educated, Miss California’s brainless comment is historically true.

For instance: Leftist feminist’s ideology demands abortion as the best way to keep a woman’s life free of the hindrance of that nasty pre-existing condition called motherhood. Since pregnancy is viewed by FemiNazis as a disease worse than Cancer and AIDS, as well as the destruction of women’s sex lives, the answer to eliminating the pre-existing condition of motherhood is abortion—euthanasia.

In view of the fact abortion takes the life of unborn children, it technically is euthanasia.

Abortion is the vaccine of all vaccines against unwanted pregnancies for pre-existing conditioned women.

Of course no one in the pageant will ever utter such words. To do so might demoralize women expected to have such high morals, they make Catholic nuns look like street walkers.

History, however, proves Miss California’s uneducated answer true: Euthanasia has vaccinated millions of unwanted human beings from existence.

In author Edwin Black’s book War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race he discusses how early 19^th century, British statistician Francis Galton believed forced sterilization on women considered inferior would prevent a so-called degenerate race, while superior women produced children.

American Charles Davenport, who helped launch radical feminism’s push for abortion with eugenics, believed abortion and sterilization was the answer to creating a perfect society by:

plot[ing] a bold campaign of ‘purging the blood of the American people of the handicapping and deteriorating influences of these anti-social classes,’ meaning the socially unfit, such as epileptics, the feebleminded, the deformed, the deaf, mute and blind.

Davenport’s horrific methods sterilized 50,000 Americans.

Sadly, Miss California would be on the list of “feebleminded, but would be allowed to live, because her looks could produce superior-looking, tall blonde children. And isn’t that of utmost importance!

President Theodore Roosevelt agreed with Davenport’s sterilization and euthanizing of unborn children:

Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce.

The Carnegie Institute and Rockefeller Foundation funded the euthanasia projects in America. By 1904, those seen as unfit to breed children were sterilized or forced into abortions. They were: Native Americans, epileptics, alcoholics, Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, small-time crooks, the mentally ill, the unemployed and homeless. In fact David Rockefeller stated this of China’s Mao

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.

Look at China today: The One Child Only Policy. Girl children must be aborted or killed after birth to create a male-dominated society.

Rockefeller was so intent on sterilization and abortion for a perfect race; he funded Hitler’s eugenics scientists in order to create the master race.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld Virginia’s decision to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck, because:

Three generations of imbeciles are enough” in this country.

Justice Holmes may have been on to something: Three generations of Kennedys did actually breed  “alcoholics,” “imbecile” sleep drivers, and “degenerate” womanizers!

President Woodrow Wilson approved of sterilization and abortion against anyone considered unfit, and

created a board of examiners of feeble-minded, epileptics and other defectives. Under it, the state could determine, ‘when procreation is inadvisable like for criminals, prisoners, poor kids and the ill-defined, other defectives.’

Wilson didn’t realize it, but he classified the whole of Washington leadership in both parties!

Margaret Sanger, who said “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” set up the Negro Project to sterilize black mothers and “exterminate” unborn black children.

Hitler was so taken with America’s euthanasia plan; he used abortion and sterilization to euthanize the unborn children of Jewish women and mentally disabled women. This was Hitler’s way of vaccinating unfit women’s bodies in order to produce a pure Aryan race.

400,000 Germans were sterilized against their will, while 800,000 abortions were performed yearly. Germany literally began losing its population due to euthanasia. The result was the Lebensborn Born Project: impregnate as many German women by SS soldiers to create the master race. Many of those children were killed because they didn’t look Nordic.

Miss California has no idea just how point on her ill-educated answer is. It’s too bad the young woman doesn’t have a clue as to what euthanasia is and what it has done to the world, as well as her own country, or she could have answered by saying: “Euthanasia? You can’t find a better vaccine against humanity and breeding what progressives consider unfit-to-live people than sterilization and abortion.”

What’s the difference?

No skirts on the left. . . It’s as simple as that.

During the election campaign Obama and Biden took great effort to mock Romney’s comment of having binder’s filled with qualified women job applicants. But apparently mocking was all it was. As the new administration takes place there has been a noticeable lack of women and minorities nominated. As Charles Krauthammer says, “Obama’s binder of women was very thin.”

How can this be acceptable to minorities and women who backed Obama? Does it say that the administration can only find white men who are qualified for these inner circle positions?

Watch the FNC Special Report video below for more discussion:

Leave it to the socialist/collectivist/statist, low-life expectancy, gun-banned UK to blame the United State’s low life expectancy on American gun-ownership and not the fact America has aborted over 54 million children, who, if allowed to live, would be populating this nation’s future.

Never blame abortion for population decline; you might wage war on selfish women’s sexual life-styles, which includes sex, getting pregnant, and aborting that infringement on women’s non-existent constitutional privacy rights.

Infringe the Second Amendment; its guns are decreasing the population!

According to England’s Daily Mail:

The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts. A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years.

Those mortality numbers are not caused by guns, thousands die each year in America from Influenza.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says 71,382 Americans died from the flu in 2007. That year, 23,199 Americans died from alcohol related deaths, and by 2011, the CDC says the leading causes of death in America continue to be “heart disease, cancer, and stroke.”

The CDC further says:

[I]n 2006, Last up to date numbers [for gun deaths], 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 [people] were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.

The University of Utah points out that  “In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms.” The causes of these guns deaths were the combination of “Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.”

Guns did not make the CDC’s 15 leading causes of death in America for 2011.

Never mind facts, leftists are determined to blame America’s population decline on guns, not leading causes such as disease, or heaven forbid, something far more significant annihilating human life daily: Abortion.

The truth is leftists don’t give a flying fart in space when it comes to unborn children. The left only cares about children born and old enough to enter classrooms where they can be indoctrinated into believing government control of every aspect of citizen’s lives improves health.  Guns, however, are evil, but not pedophilia against children’s little bodies, which is just another sexual orientated life-style choice.

Gun deaths compared to mothers who willingly allow doctors to vacuum their unborn children from the womb and toss babies in trash cans is low.

According to the National Right to Life, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Guttmacher Institute (GI):

Using GI figures through 2008, estimating 1,212,400 abortions for 2009 through 2011, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount GI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 54,559,615.

Abortion in black communities is far higher than gun deaths in American black communities.

According to GI:

[B]lack women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.  On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

 Black Genocide.org says:

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions.

The number is calculated at 36 million black American women, whom BG says:

[R]epresents an enormous loss,” [because had] America’s Black community [not aborted 16 million children, there] would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member.

Alan Guttmacher says:

black women are more than four times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.

“In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died.” That overall number is extremely low compared to abortion.

Notice the left refuses to declare abortion what it truly is: Race murder.

For the left, murder is only murder when guns are involved. Gun deaths are treated as the most threatening thing to life in America. Abortion simply keeps the planet’s population (which the left is only concerned about when guns are involved) low.

The United States does not have 1,876  gun murders daily in America’s black communities;  murder-by-abortion doctors is helping decrease America’s population, most specifically black Americans.

Your “Babies Mama’s” don’t need guns to decrease population; Margaret Sanger’s vile plan to decrease America’s black population is succeeding.

The Daily Mail skimmed facts while blaming guns for U.S. population decline: “The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio.” But:

The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality of those attacks that stands out…‘One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic,’ the report said.

Daily Mail admits:

The U.S. also suffers higher rates of drug-related deaths, infant mortality and AIDS…The nation’s health disadvantages have economic consequences as they lead to higher costs for consumers and taxpayers as well as a workforce that remains less healthy than that of other high-income countries.

Notice the quick mention of disease that shifted to blaming America’s economy  for disease deaths.  That’s the subtle statist insinuation that if America had free, socialized [tax-funded] medicine, we would not have people dying from diseases. Just like Europeans, who die from diseases, because socialism forbids full healthcare until your Cancer reaches stage 4, or you have a fatal gun-shot to the head.

The Mail won’t admit guns are not the problem, guns are not decreasing population, and aside from disease and seasonal viruses; abortion is the epidemic decreasing the United State’s population rate by the thousands each day.

No, abortion was never mentioned in the Mail, nor will abortion be mentioned by Stalin-sympathizing, Gulag thug leftists who believe children are not worth crying over unless they are born, and then shot to death, by psychotic murderers.

The truth is, when guns are used to do what abortion doctors do by the thousands each day—kill, then  leftists consider killing children murder.

Many have blamed psychos, gun laws, schools, local restrictions, etc… but in reality, the failure of the traditional family is the issue.

Having a strong figure at the center of  any family prevents unethical behavior much better than any dumb-ass Senator or Representative ever could, but don’t tell them that.

Congress is useless simply because they never contemplate the future of their families – not just their direct offspring, but their entire familial legacy.

All mothers worry about their children and husband – that’s close. Only real matriarch’s worry about the continuous line that represents all of her familial lines. Most matriarchs deal with 3-7 different family lines and work out how to bring them together into a singular group. They deal with the responsibility of multiple families and they welcome the challenge.

Almost no human can make that happen – save the matriarch. Women everywhere have to ask – am I that strong? Am I that woman the media makes me to  be? Or am I – the leader of my family?

To prevent evil, one has to lead a family away from it. Legislating purity is no more sane than expecting the church to insure it. Believer or not, Atheist or other – only a human connection can prevent human tragedies. The human connection is the matriarch.

Who leads your family?