Tag Archives: abortion

Remembering Jennifer Morbelli

Screen Shot 2013-02-11 at 6.16.57 PM

It’s another tragic story of a young woman’s life being lost to a botched abortion.  In this case, it was twenty-nine year old Jennifer Morbelli, who was a patient of Dr. Leroy Carhart.  Carhart performed a third trimester abortion on Ms. Morbelli, which resulted in massive internal bleeding in her abdominal cavity.  She died last Friday.  This isn’t the first time a patient of Dr. Carhart has died while he was performing a third trimester abortion.  According to LifeSiteNews:

This tragic incident occurred the same day that another medical emergency took place at a New Mexico abortion clinic involving long-time Carhart associate Shelley Sella. At the time of that incident, a Medical Board in New Mexico was voting to clear Sella of negligence charges, related to a botched third trimester abortion using the same risky late-term abortion method employed by Carhart. This dangerous out-patient abortion process includes long periods of time where the patient is unmonitored while taking strong doses of a drug that causes unpredictable and sometimes violent contractions.

“The avoidable death of this young woman dramatically illustrates the dangers of third trimester abortions that are done outside of the safety of obstetrical standards,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and Pro-life Nation.

“In 2005, Carhart was also involved in the death of Christin Gilbert, who died after a third trimester abortion in Wichita, Kansas. It is time for medical boards to put an end to these horrifically dangerous and barbaric third trimester abortions. If they do not, we can only expect Carhart and his associates to send more women to the morgue.”

Dr. Carhart’s butcher’s bill is disturbingly devoid of any remorse. Lila Rose, President of Live Action, released thisstatement on February 8 concerning the death Ms. Morbelli.

While his twenty-nine-year-old patient and her eight-month-old baby were dying horribly, late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart skipped town, leaving the hospital and the young woman’s family desperate for answers. Carhart himself is busy whitewashing and promoting his grisly work through a Hollywood film. So how many women and children are killed by abortionists like Carhart without our ever knowing, their deaths covered up by pro-abortion physicians?

Not only does Carhart’s violent work literally tear women from their children, but it also divides women against themselves; they suffer and mourn for their lost children, yet they are all the while told by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion entities that they have no good reason to grieve.

These tragic and unnecessary deaths underline what Live Action has detailed again and again: abortion is not safe – for anyone. Women who understand what these horrible abortions entail do not want them. And those women who are lied to and misled about these “procedures” deserve to know exactly what Big Abortion – and their abortion bosses like Carhart – seek to do to them.

However, the nation – and the political left – is more wrapped up in Christopher Dorner, than the brutalization of women at the hands of  an abortionist.

Originally posted on the PJ Tatler

*Correction:  In my previous post, I mistakenly wrote that Morbelli slipped into a coma before passing away.  She went – tragically – into Code Blue (cardiac/respiratory arrest) six times before she died.

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

bitter christianFew pastimes are more entertaining than witnessing a smug, non–orthodox Jew giving instruction on New Testament theology to Christians. Last Saturday the most reverend Lisa Miller in her Washington Post ‘Belief Watch’ column asked readers, “Is gun ownership Christian?

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

 

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

All Life is Not Equal

Mary Elizabeth Williams

First, on a personal note: Thank you, thank you and thank you, Mary Elizabeth Williams! What a glorious service you’ve done the pro-life cause. I know, that’s not what you intended. But that’s precisely what you’ve accomplished.

Did I say thank you?

In her jaw-dropping article, “So what if abortion ends life?” Williams – a mainstream, though uncharacteristically honest pro-abort scribe for Salon.com – has inexplicably broken from the Orwellian left’s ministerial script. In so doing, she’s severally undermined the very cause for which she would gladly “sacrifice” (dismember alive that is) her very own daughter. A daughter, mind you, whom she coldly acknowledges to be “a human life.”

But enough with the pleasantries.

In his 1925 manifesto “Mein Kampf,” Adolf Hitler wrote: “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal.” Though technically a human life, “the parasitic Jew is a human life without having the same rights as the Aryan.”

“Mother Germany is the boss,” he declared. “Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous Jew. Always.”

Ha! Just kidding. Actually, Ms. Williams wrote those things. She wrote them, not from Nazi Germany in 1925, but, rather, from America. Wednesday.

She wrote them, not about the Jewish people, but, instead, about the most vulnerable of all people: The child in her mother’s womb. (A holocaust by any other name …)

Yes, welcome to Feminist Funland, where the women are randy and the children are dead. In “So what if abortion ends life?” (I just love writing that), Williams, like some unintentionally creepy clown, guides us through the “pro-choice” house of mirrors, revealing, with crystal clarity, the true horror behind the left’s distorted reflections.

“While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as ‘pro-life,’” she writes, “the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like ‘choice’ and ‘reproductive freedom.’”

Here, Ms. Williams essentially admits what the life community has said for decades – that the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” long employed by the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry, is exactly that; euphemism – propaganda.

In so many words, she goes on to acknowledge that, rather than “pro-choice,” “pro-death” is indeed the appropriate moniker for her movement. “Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice,” she proclaims.

Nice. Wonder how many of the little Williams babies made the cut.

But the money line? “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live,” she declares. “All life is not equal.”

Get that, Thomas Jefferson? “All life is not equal.” Put that in your self-evident-truth-pipe and smoke it. We clear, MLK? Wrap that “I have a dream” up in a big wad of “All life is not equal” and get to the back of the Birmingham bus.

Indeed, Ms. Williams is a militant feminist and that’s adorable; but her line of reasoning here is anything but fresh and cute. It stems from the utilitarian rotgut Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger poured down the gullet of her power-drunk eugenicist fans – foremost of whom was the hypertensive fuhrer himself.

Still, to be fair, I’ll let Ms. Williams speak for herself: “Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides,” she finds. “She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

In other words: “Me no likey? You die.” Or, as Hitler really did say: “We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.” Old Adolf, of course, defined “health” to mean exactly what feminists mean by it. “Health: Any reason at all.”

Maybe I’ve been at this too long, but I love it when liberals mistake sociopathy for conviction – candor for courage. I revel in those rare moments when left-wing extremists, nestled warm inside the foul bowels of their “progressive” echo chamber – pull back the wizard’s curtain just far enough to expose, if only for an instant, the wicked sty in which they roll, splash and play.

Like this gem: “If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant,” Williams boasts, “you bet you’re a-s I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion. … I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”

“The World’s Greatest Abortion.”

“A life worth sacrificing.”

Roe at 40: A Discussion with Live Action’s Lila Rose

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PM

Screen Shot 2013-01-23 at 4.25.03 PMOn January 22, the United States celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in all fifty states.  In doing so, the Court usurped a developing consensus amongst the state legislatures on the issue, and violated the principle of federalism that should guide how we enact policy in this country.  Nevertheless, Roe, in estimates from The National Right to Life Committee, has been responsible for 54,559,615 abortions since 1973.  As Daniel Halper wrote for The Weekly Standard on January 22,”that…means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.”

I was fortunate to have a discussion with Live Action’s President, Lila Rose, on the future of the pro-life movement, and what activities they intend to aggressively pursue in this vicious front of America’s culture war.  Live Action has been at the forefront of documenting abuses made by Planned Parenthood in various undercover stings across the country.  What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

In the wake of the 2012 elections, pro-life Americans found themselves back in the minority.  What does Live Action plan to do to turn that tide, especially reaching out to the youth, and urban areas where most abortions are performed?

Sure.  Well, first of all – I mean a lot of the latest polling indicates that more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. And there’s certainly in the last forty years, despite the Supreme Court case  [Roe v. Wade] that vandalized our constitution and made abortion somehow a right – Americans – more and more with the rise of the ultra sound imagery and with the rise of independent media have been seeing the truth about the child in the womb. And the number of pro-lifers is increasing.  Particularly, one of the strongest demographics is young people.

Live Action’s work reaches over a million people every week through social media. We have a news website that’s contributed by over 50 writers; most of them young people, investigating and doing original reporting on the abortion industry – and lobby.   And it’s really been amazing to see this growth from people all over the country – the grassroots – who want the truth about human dignity and who want to expose the violence of abortion  – the injustice of abortion.  And that is a movement that’s only growing.  And Live Action also has a magazine, a leading pro-life magazine, for students on hundreds of high school and colleges, and reaching them every day on campuses, as well as online – and that’s one of the programs we’re going to be aggressively building in the next year because we believe that when you put the truth in front of students – when you put the truth in front of young people. When you put the truth out there, then it changes hearts and minds, and we’ve seen that again and again.

A new NBC/WSJ poll showed that 70% of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and 24% want it to be overturned.  Thirty-nine percent approve of the decision, 18% disapprove – but 41% don’t have enough information to make an opinion.  In that regard, how successful have you been in educating Americans, who may not know much about Roe v. Wade – or its implications on our society?

Right, it’s a great question. I think that – that study directly reveals the amazing opportunity we have as a movement because there are a lot of people who are unreached in our country with the truth about abortion and human dignity.  And Live Action may be reaching a million people online every week.  But there are over 300+ million more people to reach.  So, this is really just the beginning of – you know, this is – we’re at an amazing point where we have the tools at our disposal, and the truth at our disposal – and now it’s a matter of how many people can we reach.

Is Live Action, as an organization, planning to lobby Congress to resurrect PRENDA (Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act), which punishes doctors for performing sex-selecive abortions?

Sure.  Well, the focus of Live Action Advocate, our 501 (c) (4) that I’m involved with, and the focus of Live Action Advocate, as it has been one of the rallying cry/calls of the pro-life movement is to make sure that the biggest abortion chain in the country, Planned Parenthood, is no longer receiving the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that it get every year from the government – and under President Obama that number has skyrocketed to half a billion of taxpayers dollars goes to the biggest abortion chain.  So, that really is the priority.  We need a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  We need to establish the personhood of the unborn child, and part of the path to make that happen we need to make sure that the abortion industry, in our country, is not being subsidized by the government.

Rose also debunked the claim that abortion represents only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, which was also exposed as false in a op-ed in Life News by the Americans United for Life Legal Team last October.  However, it’s still a tough fight.  As Allahpundit wrote for Hot Air last November, only 38% described themselves as pro-life, compared to 54% who identified themselves as pro-choice.  However, this was fresh off the 2012 elections, and Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s unfortunate comments about rape and pregnancy surely didn’t help the cause. However, Life News’ Steve Ertelt has disputed recent polls showing a pro-choice majority.

Furthermore, Allahpundit wrote today that the NBC/WSJ poll could be skewed (NBC! no way!):

because Gallup didn’t specify ‘three months’ in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer ‘don’t know’ about Roe.

In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision…

[…]

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion.

Although, he did say that engaging Millenials on this issue is “going against the ideological tide.”

Nevertheless, Rose’s outreach initiatives through social media is where pro-lifers can turn the tide.  Case in point,  despite his poor economic record, Barack Obama vastly outspent Mitt Romney in social media last year, and won.  Go to where young people get their information.

This opportunity is accentuated with the resignation of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s President Nancy Keenan, who left since “most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue,  [while] NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.”

This whole fight is based on public opinion, which is shiftable sand.  However, with the dissemination of the facts, the malfeasance of Planned Parenthood, and the utilization of social media – pro-lifers, like Lila Rose, could easily gain the strategic edge over the long term.

The latest Live Action news, including their recent investigation into Planned Parenthood’s complicity in sex-selective abortion, can be found here.

 

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War Part 2

The Obama Inauguration Committee features a new "Heretics Only" water fountain policy.

The Obama Inauguration Committee features a new “Heretics Only” water fountain policy.

Christ was no doubt on to something when He limited His public ministry to three years. Any longer and a mere human may forget what he said before or, even worse, lose enthusiasm for an earlier message as the culture changes.

Which is evidently what happened to the Rev. Louie Giglio. Until recently he was scheduled to give the benediction at Obama’s second inauguration. Giglio — founder of the “Passion Conferences” that are marketed to college–age Christians — had lately been in the news for his work against human trafficking and had said grace, so to speak, over the Easter Prayer Breakfast in the White House.

But then an aggressively homosexual lobbying group dug up a sermon Giglio delivered in the mid–90’s and accused him of being an orthodox Christian that believes in the Bible. Well, that was that and Giglio lost no time beating a hasty retreat from the inauguration.

Giglio might have made a better decision if he’d listened to his own sermon before deciding to run up the white flag.

In it the reverend is addressing the homosexual onslaught that traditional culture was just beginning to experience. Giglio wisely pointed out, “We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but many in the homosexual community. Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive movement. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as unknown warm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to the family.”

That was not only wise, it was prophetic. Then Giglio mentions what both the Old and New Testament have to say regarding homosexual practices and concludes, “…homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle…homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the world of God…That’s God’s voice. If you want to hear God’s voice, that is his voice to the issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear.”

Again, there is nothing that a plain reading of Scripture does not tell one. Giglio was not embellishing and he was certainly not personally condemning homosexuals. He just stated the obvious at it applies to the Bible and observant Christians.

Homosexual practices are not a lifestyle. The practice is a rebellion against God at the most fundamental level. God created woman for man and blessed the union. Any other arrangement is a perversion of God’s plan and God’s intent. And it remains a perversion in spite of the fact the only perversions elite culture recognizes today are smoking, obesity and magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds.

Giglio also said, “We must not sit quietly by and stick our heads in the sand and let whatever happens happen in our country. We’ve got to respond to the world we live in. That is the mandate that comes to us as people of God. And this issue is coming more and more to the forefront every day.”

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Giglio did not do. Instead he issued a weak statement that reads, “Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15 to 20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer that I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.

“Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years. Instead, my aim is meant to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”

This reads like it was written by the same people covering up the massacre at our consulate in Libya. And “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ” means exactly what?

Christ is significant with or without Giglio’s help. What He needs are teachers who will engage the culture. My fellow conservatives are off the mark when they view this incident as another instance of a politically correct culture that hostile to Christianity.

The culture has always been hostile to Christianity. Good grief, Herod murdered all the male children in Bethlehem aged two or under in an effort to end Christ’s ministry before it began. You can’t get much more hostile than that.

What Giglio has done is acquiesce in the disparagement of the truth of the Bible. What kind of message does this send to the young Christians that Giglio is supposed to be leading? Does Giglio hope the culture will be at least as accepting of him as it is of tobacco executives?

Does it mean Christianity has some vaguely disreputable beliefs that we only share privately with our friends, but the philosophy is not something we want to identify with in public?

How, exactly, does that differ from a meeting of the Klan?

We are losing the culture war because Christians are lead by pacifists, as I wrote about earlier. Giglio has “evolved” from confronting the culture to surfing cultural waves. His current cause is “human trafficking,” which has a number of advantages for a timid Christian. One, all the right organizations are against human trafficking. Two, you get to hobnob with celebrities. And three the chances of offending someone in the congregation are infinitesimal.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, asked the Washington Post: “Are all Orthodox clergy now to be banished from civic life if they openly affirm their faith’s teaching about marriage and sexual ethics?” “Are only clergy from declining liberal denominations now acceptable according to hyper–political correctness? Will the same standard also apply to Muslims and members of other faiths who don’t subscribe to the views of Western secular elites?”

Giglio evidently thinks refusing to confront the administration’s “Heretics Only” drinking fountain policy is being polite. But the message it sends the flock is one of weakness and vacillation when it comes to the plain language of the tougher parts of the New and Old Testament.

And it really compares poorly with the Catholic bishop who is preparing to go to jail rather than comply with the Obamacare abortion mandate.

Lou Giglio is building a ministry designed to attract the young in Atlanta. Up until now the name was “Passion City.” In light of his failure to affirm his own message, I suggest Giglio might want to consider changing the name to “Mildly Enthusiastic (But Not to the Point Where We Would Offend Anyone) City.”

Time: Pro-Choice Activists Losing Abortion Fight

time_magazine_abortion

TIME Magazine’s newest cover story laments the fact that the tide is turning away from the pro-choice camp, and America is becoming more pro-life. The cover caption reads:

“40-years ago, abortion rights activists won an epic victory with Roe v. Wade. They’ve been losing ever since.”

Pro-life laws now give women more information on abortion, as well as other alternatives in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.

The article also highlights the fact that early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, were in fact pro-life.

Do Parents who Choose Life over Abortion Deserve Tax Break For Unborn Child

Children in Washington D.C. - protesting against abortion
Women who had abortions - protesting to protect unborn life

Women who had abortions – protesting to protect unborn life

As the year 2012 closes, there are millions of parents across the nation who should be realizing a tax break for their unborn child.  If their state follows Michigan’s lead which is considering granting parents that chose preserving a child’s life in the womb deserves a financial break.  For several weeks Michigan GOP legislators have been seriously contemplating granting a tax credit for parents of fetuses that are twelve weeks or older, according to the publication, the New Civil Rights Movement.

Liberals in the state legislature immediately jumped on the notion of granting an economic benefit for those cash-strapped parents who may be hit with higher taxes next year. They, like many parents across the nation are worried about the congress and the president being hopelessly deadlocked in ‘fiscal cliff ‘negotiations that will possibly add an additional $2,300 – $3,500 tax bill to their household. Why are Democrats worried about granting a tax break for middle-class families? Does it make sense to you?

Parents that have chosen protecting a child’s life over aborting the child should be a cause for celebration and why not reward the expectant parents with a tax break and legislators with re-election!  State legislatures across the nation are moving to strengthen the opportunity for an unborn child to hold onto their right to life, as abortion numbers continue to fall in America.

In 2009, which is the last year for reported abortion numbers, “A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009. Of these abortions, 772,630 (98.5%) were from the 45 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2000–2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The value of life in the womb is gaining traction.  And these future parents deserve to be helped and not spurned by liberal and anti-life supporters.  Millions of families that are seeing their bills continue to increase, and it becomes more difficult to make their shrinking paychecks stretch.  A tax break for their unborn child, could be passed in early 2013 and have retroactive impact on 2012 income.

Is this legislation extreme as many liberals have claimed, who are concerned about the possibility that an unborn child just might be granted “personhood rights” rights? The director of Progress Michigan, Zack Pohl, called the pro-family legislation a back door way of, “passing extreme personhood legislation.”

How can it be extreme to grant a young struggling family the right to take advantage of the tax system that could grant them the benefit of putting a little more in their budget to pay for items necessary for the support of their expected child?

 

How can  liberals like Obama, force Catholic institutions like Georgetown pay for Law student Sandra Fluke’s abortion pills, but liberal leaders like him them not support tax-breaks for struggling parents of an unborn child?

With the fortieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe V. Wade decision coming in May of 2013, it seems more than ironic, that these same anti-life pro-choice forces are looking for yet another way to deprive a mother and father of a benefit of bringing a life into the world.

These liberal leaders know what you already know in your heart and in your gut. An unborn child is not just a mass of tissue, but is life, feels pain and suffers when harmed.  Examine for yourself, the state of law in America, concerning the status of an unborn child being carried in the womb of a mother. You determine if granting tax privileges for an unborn child is wrong.

An unborn child is considered a person under the law, when the mother is attacked and the attack results in the death of the unborn child. The laws which give legal human status to a murdered unborn child are called “feticide” laws. As a matter of law, the fetal homicide is considered a separate and distinct criminal act which exists aside from an attack and possible harm to the mother.

Therefore, the unborn child already has legal status, and that legal status is protected by law in 38 states in America. Twenty three states go even further in granting legal right-to-life protection for the unborn child from harm. These states provide, “fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy including ‘any state of gestation,’ or conception,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So where is the debate and where is the harm in granting a mother and father a tax benefit for their child, in any state, be it Texas, Ohio, Montana, Tennessee, Kentucky or any other? Abortion activists have claimed that granting “special rights” to the unborn child would take away a mother’s flexibility to strip an unborn child’s life from its body as the Roe v Wade decision permits. How ironic that the mother can harm and impede the life of her child.

The congress has already set the table for protecting the unborn child’s right to be defended against harm, with passage of the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act. When President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law, it recognized:

A “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

If a child is considered a legal victim and is, “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb,” then why shouldn’t the 49 other states in the nation, and Michigan, take the next logical step and pass a law granting parents the right to a tax break for their unborn child?

Make 2013, a year of celebration for the truth about unborn life. Life is more than a heartbeat.  Life is a child, a future that deserves a choice.  Join the effort locally to protect the parent’s choice by supporting their right to a tax break for their unborn child.  After all, each precious unborn child is a “member of the species Homo sapiens.”  We all are…born and unborn!

( click – let me know what you think )

 

Have you bought your ‘abornament’ yet?

Screen Shot 2012-12-20 at 12.49.04 AM

Screen Shot 2012-12-20 at 12.49.04 AM

Yes, abortion rights activists have reached a new level of depravity. Apparently, as everyone indulges in the holiday spirit, the pro-choice camp decided to create abortion ornaments – or ‘abornaments’ – to be part of the commemoration of the birth of Christ. The fact that pro-choice Americans threw this in the face of those who practice religion, or hold pro-life beliefs, is offensive in the extreme. Steven Ertelt of Life News wrote on December 19:

The pro-life group Life Dynamics has been highlighting so-called “Abornaments” that pro-abortion activists are promoting. They are sharing the images of the sacrilegious ornaments on the popular image sharing web site Pinterest.

Most of the so-called Christmas ornaments pictured involve the manipulation and desecration of plastic fetal models depicting unborn children at various stage of development before birth.

“It’s that time of year again for ABORNAMENTS! Every year, the pro-choice community celebrates abortion at Christmas by selling Abornaments Anyone disgusted? We are,” the pro-life group says. “What were they thinking?”

That’s a good question.

Screen Shot 2012-12-19 at 4.37.32 PM

Dear Left: Conservatives Will Discuss Gun Control When the Left Agrees to Discuss Abortion Control

ban rifles1 pound baby

 

 

How many anti-gun leftists screaming for gun control would have supported the abortions of the 20 Newtown, Connecticut children had their parents chose abortion when those children were in the womb? Millions of leftists, including many screaming for gun bans.  Yet, when children are murdered by-way-of guns, leftists whore out every media camera, grabbing front and center attention to demonstrate tearful horror over the loss of innocent lives. Innocent lives leftists consider a hindrance to women when the innocents are in the womb.

So to leftists demanding more gun control discussions with legislators and citizens, let’s have that gun control discussion when you leftists are willing to talk about abortion control.

The left’s favorite protest next to capitalism and abortion on demand is gun control. Considering how fervently anti-death penalty and anti-Second Amendment the left is, it’s quite an oxymoron on their part to support killing children in the womb while mourning children who have been murdered by a monstrous gunman.

Let’s not forget the majority of these gun-ban pushers, horrified by a lunatic’s mass murder of children, would protest for that gunman’s life had he not killed himself and faced the death penalty.

death penalty makes us all killers

 

 

Of course this is a hopeless argument against useless idiots.  If given the choice to save pregnant women or puppies standing before firing squads, the left would throw themselves on top of the doomed puppies. To hell with our nation’s future and our Constitution’s preservation, unborn children and guns hinder our lives!

Conservatives across the spectrum can try to hold abortion control discussions, but we know the left will have none of it: Abortion is necessary to a woman’s sexual liberty, abortion is not murder, guns are, because guns kill! Abortion simply makes life-style problems go away.

Despite gun violence arguments and the Brady Campaign’s  claim that citizen gun mortality is higher than all U.S. wars combined, America has more abortion deaths per year than gun deaths.  But comparing civilian gun deaths to over 300 years of wars involving Americans is a political ploy to outlaw all guns.  Everyone knows wars incurs death; that’s why war is called war. Correlating armed civilians with war insinuates armed citizens are at war with other citizens. That is false. But don’t ever call abortion a war on children; you might offend women crusading for their freedom from that combat known as motherhood!

 

abortion not legal debate

 

If the left wants to discuss their hatred of guns, the right is justified in discussing its abhorrence toward taking the lives of unborn, as well as presenting those statistics.

According to National Right To Life, the CDC reports:

After dropping 25% from a high of over 1.6 million [abortions] in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. has leveled off at about 1.2 million a year.

 

Still, the abortion rate is high.

 The CDC reports: 

In 2009 [alone], 784,507 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births.

 

The overall total of abortions in America to date:

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 rates may have dropped, but the numbers are still astronomical compared to gun deaths.

But leftist will never admit abortion is a war on unborn children.

 

gun to unborn baby

 

Gun deaths in 2009—intentional and accidental combined—totaled:“31,347, Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2” CDC tracking has shown that firearm-related deaths—homicide, suicide or accidental—have declined each year.

The University of Pennsylvania Wharton College facilitates the anti-gun beliefs by claiming:

The US remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms of life expectancy…[and] the elimination of all firearm deaths in the US would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers.

 

Sorry academics, but had 54,559,615 Americans not been aborted, America would have a higher life expectancy today.

This is not making light of gun deaths. All death is tragic. But leftists view high abortion rates as a woman’s entitlement (unborn children lack rights until born and a gunman puts a gun to their heads) to control her own body and gun ownership the ultimate threat to society. That perspective is two-faced. How is killing unborn children, our nation’s future, just, but guns are deadly? Wouldn’t it be correct to say abortion is deadly because that is the procedure’s intention, and guns are only deadly when used to commit harm or fired accidentally?

Leftists disagree. Preventing abortion is a “War on Women.” Abortion is necessary for population control and freeing women from sexual impediments. Gun control and bans, however, are necessary for government to control citizen’s lives, conduct, religious, social, and political views.

If you cannot defend yourself from tyranny, then you are forced to become its servant.

Still, if Americans are to have gun control debates, leftists must allow conservative views on abortion. If leftists are hell-bent on abolishing the Second Amendment, conservatives have every right to discuss petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and placing abortion back in individual state hands.

If states have rights to impose stringent laws on guns, individual states should be given back their rights to decide whether or not citizens want abortion legal.

The mere suggestion of that discussion would go over like the Atomic Bomb on Japan.

Never mind the fact radically leftist California, New York and Massachusetts would never outlaw abortion and women seeking sexual freedom could turn their vacuumed sovereignty into a vacation package. Forget it, abortion is not allowed on the control discussion table.

No matter how hard commonsense argues with the left, guns will always be deemed violent weapons and abortion will always be considered a necessary means to end the domination of women’s bodies by unwanted children, those same women show compassion for, if children are murdered by an insane gunman.

There are two sides to life and death issues.  If one side is allowed to have a debate on gun deaths, the other side deserves the right to bring up abortion deaths. After all, it is only “fair” to “share” our individual ideas.

After The Election, Pro-life Americans Find Themselves in the Minority

Screen Shot 2012-11-20 at 12.31.31 PM

On May 23, 2012, Gallup released a poll that showed that people who identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ was at a record low of 41%.  Additionally, Americans who described themselves as pro-life, at the time, constituted 50% of the population.  That nine point margin in America’s ongoing culture war has flipped.  Pro-choice Americans are now 54% of the population, compared to 38% who are pro-life, according to Rasmussen.  As Allahpundit of Hot Air posted on November 15, “elections have consequences.”  However, it begs the question, where did all the pro-lifers go?

For one thing, we’re a liberal democracy – a republic to be exact.  As such, governments are based on public opinion, and opinion is shiftable sand.  Therefore, there are no permanent victories in democracy.  Conservative commentator George Will has spoken about this ad nauseum, and aptly made the observation that Sen. Barry Goldwater, who lost in the ’64 presidential election, knew about this aspect in American society.  Hence, why people say Goldwater didn’t lose in 1964, it just took sixteen years to count all the votes.  Reagan’s win in 1980 was the reaffirmation of Goldwater’s conservative conscience.

However, it cannot be denied that some Republican senate candidates made rather irresponsible remarks about rape and abortion on the campaign trail, which hurt the pro-life movement.  Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri are the two names that comes up frequently in this discussion.  Without a doubt, they paid a heavy price for their poorly constructed narratives that moved those leaning towards the pro-life argument, towards the pro-choice camp.   Allahpundit reaffirms this claim, citing a CNN poll from last August showing that, “[Abortion was] nice and steady there in the mid-20s for ‘legal under any circumstances’ over the past five years — until suddenly, in August of this year, the number jumps. Why? Well, what else happened in August this year? Right: Todd Akin opened his yapper about “legitimate rape” and women’s supposed biological defense mechanisms against it and that was the beginning of the end for Republican chances to take back the Senate. How big a deal was it? Weeks later, the NYT poll was seeing more support for the idea that abortion should be “generally available” than it had in over 15 years.”

So, if some people, who are pro-life, are wondering why they lost popular support, they need only to look at some of the politicians selected to support their cause in Washington D.C.  We need to be smarter.

 

Republicans Advocate Surrender After Defeat

undocumented-democrats-democrats-politics-1338770687

Evidently Romney campaign consultants were paying way too much attention to Michelle Obama’s War on Cafeteria Lunch Ladies. Consequently, when her husband offered a campaign built around Bread & Circuses; they countered with healthy eating and free–range elephants.

A role reversal that proved fatal.

More than once I’ve heard discouraged conservatives complain that ignorant voters were responsible for re–electing Obama, but that’s simply not true. Misguided and short–sighted voters, yes, but certainly not ignorant.

Obama supporters voted for the candidate who gave them the most freebies. Union members voted for the Government Motors bailout and the prospect of “card check.”

Government employees voted for bigger government and its number one disciple. Hispanics voted for a freeze on deportation and amnesty for illegals. College students voted for low interest student loans and possible loan forgiveness.

Unmarried mothers voted for food stamps, welfare, free contraceptives and — for the sexually disorganized — federally–funded abortion. Homosexuals voted for homosexual marriage. And blacks voted for the black guy.

Now, proving there is no one more gullible than a panicked Republican, some of our “leaders” are considering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Amnesty for illegals will be called “immigration reform,” just as adulterers call fornication “marriage reform.” Passage will be equivalent to allowing a family who squatted on land inside a national park to keep the land as part of “ownership reform.” It wouldn’t be fair to evict them, don’t you know, because they built a house and their kids would have to change school districts.

Unfortunately for Republican leaders who put power before principle, amnesty is wrong for four reasons.

First it’s morally wrong. Rewarding lawbreakers, only encourages more lawbreaking, erodes respect for the rule of law and discriminates against potential legal immigrants who are waiting their turn. Amnesty also serves to take jobs from low income US citizens and depresses the wages of those that have jobs.

Secondly, it solves nothing. Democrats — who make short–term memory loss part of their governing philosophy — conveniently forget the US granted Hispanics a massive amnesty during the Reagan administration. That “never to be repeated” amnesty legalized over 4 million illegals. This final solution possessed such deterrent power that over 12 million illegals are demanding amnesty this time, a four–fold increase.

Third, amnesty will damage Republicans at the ballot box. Let’s assume 4 million of the approximately 12 million illegals are of voting age. These are not Republican votes in waiting, they are, as fellow columnist Mike Adams says, “undocumented Democrats.” All 4 million will be voting Democrat from now on.

It’s a fact the GOP never gets credit for anything involving civil rights. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed a larger percentage of Republicans supported the bill than Democrats, yet Democrats get all the credit. If I recall correctly Ronald Reagan was a Republican, yet even after the passage of amnesty during his administration, the GOP still has a problem with Hispanics.

Four, “socially conservative” Hispanics are like Iranian “moderate mullahs.” GOP “experts” claim Hispanic “family values” mean their natural home is the GOP. Yet on Sunday, November 4th, these “socially conservative” Hispanics sat in Catholic churches and heard homilies about the Obama administration forcing the church to violate basic Catholic beliefs. Then they rushed to the polls to vote for the most radical abortion–supporting president in history.

The only way for Republicans to profit from amnesty is to invest in companies producing the velvet Obama paintings that will soon be joining the velvet JFKs gracing the walls of many minority homes.

No wonder Democrats are so eager to cooperate with the GOP on this “bi–partisan reform” legislation.

Republicans simply cannot win a bidding war with Democrats and remain Republicans. It will take time for a values and civic virtues campaign to be successful, because changing public attitudes is a long-term project. So I suggest Republicans conduct asymmetrical electoral warfare.

Presidential election years have larger turnout that favors Democrats. Off–year elections have smaller turnout and give our base a larger impact. Nationally, during the education process, the GOP can concentrate on winning off–year elections and build up conservative margins in the US House, gain a Senate seat or two and defend the rest during Presidential years.

All the while concentrating our message on the benefits of individual liberty, personal responsibility and marketplace competition. Democrats and “progressives” are now using the ballot box to exploit the cultural pathologies their incompetent policies have created over the past 40 years. Over the short term it may prove to be an indestructible ideological loop.

But if conservatives aren’t in this fight over the long term, why are we in it at all?

Why Obama’s Election Win Did Not Defeat Conservative America

John House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) discusses how President Obama must deal with fiscal cliff facing the nation

What happened? What happened in America on November 6th in reelecting Barack Obama to a second term was not indicative of how wrong conservative America is in standing up for principles. Instead, the result displayed how far left the mainstream media and the nation’s achievement challenged liberal president has performed.

Obama convinced the country to accept the notion that the America values was based on how much it could give away to targeted groups with welfare checks without work requirements. He increased food stamps to 47 million Americans and handed out education and housing vouchers to illegal immigrants, as well as gay marriage protection against federal laws that prohibit it.

The liberal pundits and mainstream media gotcha specialists have been pontificating about the Romney loss to the hate and revenge president. There are plenty of liberals and even some republican moderates in the media who have been wagging their fingers at conservatives and the Tea Party for not being more moderate in their views about abortion, illegal immigration and adding more crushing debt to the nation’s families.

In fact, conservatives did not lose this election, because in the end, they demonstrated to the nation that America does have a truly bona fide conservative movement in this country. This conservative movement is made up of the 57,588,360 plus voters who on November 6th did not compromise its values to meet the president’s liberal agenda. It will not support a president who engages in solutions which strip the nation of its sovereignty and diminish the founding conservative values and biblical principles.

What occurred in America on November 6th was the drawing of a true line in the sand. This line’s firmness is based upon conservatives and Tea Party supporters who categorically refuse to let themselves be swept away in a tidal wave of false security. These are patriots who will not accept deception from a president who believes that it is better to place a lie before the truth, and embrace character assassination instead of displaying presidential integrity.

What the nation and the world witnessed is quite clear. A community organizer from Chicago armed with the street tools he perfected from socialist Saul Alinsky’s teachings could manipulate the media and obscure the truth. This same president could even cover up the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya and lie with the full cooperation of CBS’s 60 Minutes. Worse yet, the media let him get away with it until Election Day.

So did Obama and the millions of Americans who believe that fictional accomplishments will somehow magically prevent the crushing debt from destroying their lives and their children’s future really not happen? Will the soul wrenching unemployment rate of 15 percent and more for black Americans and close to 50 percent among black teens suddenly disappear?

What about the Hispanic voters, who decided that a supporting more jobs and legal immigration was less important than supporting illegal aliens who are breaking the immigration laws of this nation. Did they embrace sticking their hands out for government handouts is an acceptable path to becoming an American?

The truth is simple. Liberals Americans believe that hope and change means that they hope that conservatives will change to adopt and embrace their failed presidential candidate’s principles. Liberal media pundits and reporters believe that conservatives should just morph into valueless citizens who are willing to embrace incompetence in Obama’s governance as the best Americans should expect.

This nation is only as great and as enduring as its people neither is unwilling to witness nor permit the undoing of those sacred principles that America’s fore fathers held dear. Conservatives did not lose an election. The 57.8 million plus voters represent 57.8 million starting points for protecting the lives of millions of unborn babies from becoming victims of abortion.

The 57.8 million conservative voters are a beginning rally point to reach out and find one more patriot. This is a starting point to put aside any disappointment over and election and instead recognize this is a war for the nation’s future. A battle was lost, but not the war to protect children from a president Obama, from increasing his goal of taxing as a moral mandate and spending away America’ future. Conservatives can help Obama from continuing to redefine America into becoming a socialist state of America.

Election night, President Obama gave another telling statement about what he considers an olive branch to the conservative side of the political divide. He said, “We are in this together. That’s how we campaigned and that is who we are?”

Mr. President, conservatives, Tea Party Patriots did not campaign to fortify an administration that plunged the country’s financial ratings into the fiscal toilet. Conservatives are not part of your simplistic “that is who we are” ideal of America.

No, Mr. President, “we” are not in this mess that you created together. You created more joblessness, you handed out more food stamps, and you demonized Republicans, and Mitt Romney, because you could, and because the mainstream media willingly cooperated.

Now, Mr. President Obama, let’s see how well your Chicago thuggish tactics actually help Americans to survive in a nation adrift from its founding values. Will you create 12 million jobs and a debt-free future which your lack of job creation experience and ability has saddled the nation with?

Conservative America, this point in history shall too pass, but today marks the beginning of a newer more firm change in America. With the hand of the Creator which guided the nation’s fore fathers, America will begin again. An election will not unravel the will of America’s founding values. Nor can a narcissist leader and administration cause those of faith to bend to his delusional edicts.

As Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of America eloquently pointed out,
“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

Obama’s win was a win for a mortal man who believes his “rock star status” elevates him among all mortals. But he is still mortal, despite his belief. What happened in America on Election Day, makes November 7th day one for a stronger more determined conservative movement. Each day, will bring conservatives and America to a more vital and more perfect union that is one nation under God.                   (  Click – Let me know what you think )

Latino Vote: Families, Children, Faith

Eduardo_Verastegui

Latino actor Eduardo Verastegui star of telenovelas and the movie Bella is a pro-life advocate. He has released several videos denouncing the pro-choice message of  President Obama.

Verastegui has released a new video reminding Latinos of their guiding principles to families and faith. Please visit the website to watch it: Urgent Message For Latinos.

It’s time to stand for our principles. Vote for the candidate who also believes in families, children and faith.

Please share this with your Latino and Hispanic friends. And be a friend. Offer a ride to the polls Tuesday.

Chocolate-Covered Pretzels

chocolate-covered-pretzels

It can be argued that one of the most important and treasured cultural aspects in the Black community is our faith. We are overwhelmingly  Christian.

The church has played a key role in our cultural and spiritual development almost from the time our ancestors were first dragged here in chains. At times, God and His church were all Black Americans had to cling to in the darkest oppressions. Even as we have moved from segregation to freedom we have always held fast to the tenants of God’s Word, and as a result we are largely socially conservative as a group. However, when it comes to our votes we don’t seem to carry that same adherence to our faith to the polls.

The official platform of the Democrat party embraces gay marriage, while the Black community sees this as antithetical to God’s Word.

Despite being only 12% of the population and representing over 35% of abortions, the majority of Black Americans still believe life is God-given; and yet the Democrat platform endorses abortion.

Record unemployment in Black communities and America in general, 47 million Americans receiving food stamps, skyrocketing energy prices and a debt that threatens to topple the country seem to have very little effect on Black Christians – by all indications they are still solidly in Obama’s camp.

Some say it is because they are uncomfortable with Romney’s Mormon faith, some genuinely believe that he (and his party) is racist and would roll back civil rights.

Some say that things really will get better if we just hang on a little longer and don’t change horses mid-race. My father-in-law, Victor Davis (a conservative Black pastor who served his community of Gary, IN for over 40 years) told me this: “I had coined the phrase “Chocolate Covered Pretzels”  to describe many of the “African-American church folk” after Obama made his endorsement of Homosexual Marriage. That represented to me the theological twisting and bending that they would go through to find a way to support their “black president-brother-man” and sadly that is what I hear and see more and more of.

Some are not able to differentiate between what a man “says he believes” and what a man legislates or enforces in the way of policies and laws. Even the unbeliever (Cyrus Ezra 6:4) can lead a nation in righteous decrees and provide an atmosphere in which the Gospel has freedom to be proclaimed and practiced (1 Tim 2:1-4) without restraint. However to contrast that, is when the “so-called believer” legislates Antichrist/laws, along with upholding the killing of God conceived babies and then work to restrict the “faith practices” of clear scriptural teaching, then that ” believer” is in direct conflict with the Kingdom purpose of God (that His will would be done on earth as it is in Heaven)”

I want to ask this question specifically to my Black Christian brothers and sisters: Do your political loyalties represent your faith? When you go vote on Tuesday, will you be voting as a “Chocolate-covered pretzel” or a participant in the Kingdom of God?

I know what’ I’ll be doing.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

TONIGHT- Married to the Game: Benghazigate, Sooper Mexican, And Unforced Errors

miccheck

Tonight, on Married to the Game, we’ll be discussing the latest details in Benghazigate, but we’ll also be spending some time talking about how unforced errors have shaped this 2012 election season.  Friend of the show, Sooper Mexican will be a guest, and he’ll discuss the influence Twitter (and the Internet in general) has had on this election.  It’s going to be a good show, as we talk about things from different perspectives than most shows take.

When:  7pm on the West Coast / 10pm on the East Coast

Where: BlogTalkRadio.com

« Older Entries Recent Entries »