VA Democrat Ticket: Two charisma–challenged white guys & a carpetbagger.

The Washington Post finally got its primary and in typical leftist fashion, they approved of the candidate selection method that was both inefficient and cost taxpayers the most. Earlier this year the Posties criticized Republicans for using the convention method to choose their nominees — even though Lincoln was chosen by a convention and the Constitution was written at one.

The Post complained the 8,000 delegates that attended the Richmond convention were less than one percent of registered Republicans in the Commonwealth. And in fact, the editorial page was in such a snit over the Republican’s choice of a convention the page “did not make endorsements.” (Which explains all the black armbands on the convention floor being worn by former Bolling supporters.)

But an expensive Democrat primary where less than 3 percent of the voters bothered to make it to the polls is considered a triumph of participatory democracy on the Post editorial page. So now Virginia voters face the daunting prospect of a campaign spent listening to a lily–white ticket, composed of three middle–aged males that are obsessed with women’s reproductive organs.

And that’s just the Democrats!

Republicans in their “closed convention” somehow managed to choose the only minority on either statewide ticket, while a majority of Democrat primary voters refused to select either the Indian running for lieutenant governor (the sub–continent kind, not the Lone Ranger kind) or the black running for attorney general.

And talk about your social issue fanatics! Ralph Northam, the Democrat pick for lieutenant governor, ran a commercial before the primary where all he talks about is abortion. Northam declares, “There is no reason that a group of legislators, mostly men, should be telling women what they should and shouldn’t be doing with their bodies.”

Well that’s pretty definitive. But I have to ask: Does Northam’s declaration cover prostitution? Underage sex? Incest? Female–teacher–on–underage–male sex abuse? Flashing? Where, exactly does Northam draw the line?

Northam supporters keep mentioning that “he is the only physician in the VA Senate” as if that gives him special standing. But Northam is one of those doctors who have a loose interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. In Northam’s office you have to be large enough to hand over the co–pay before you are accorded the rights of a human being.

While Republicans Ken Cuccinelli and E. W. Jackson are talking about creating jobs and growing the economy, Northam advocates de–regulating abortion clinics and fighting passage of a bill that would grant “personhood” status to an unborn baby.

Northam’s ‘an abortion in every pot’ platform is particularly relevant when one remembers that the Posties have declared war on Jackson — who happens to be of the black persuasion — for his accurate, completely true remark that Planned Parenthood has been “far more lethal to black lives” than the Ku Klux Klan.

The WaPost responds by analogizing that, “Abortion rates in the United States are higher for African Americans and Hispanics than for other groups. That reflects the fact that those groups tend to have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies. To blame the incidence of abortion on the clinics that provide abortion services is like blaming stores that sell cigarettes for the fact that too many Americans smoke.”

This analogy is only accurate if the government is buying smokes for the underage and poor, while simultaneously discouraging abstinence.

At the victory celebration, Northam came this close to talking about an issue that would attract independents and soft Republicans, before he lapsed into pube–speak, “This state, in order to have business, in order to welcome people, we need to be inclusive. That starts with stopping the attack on women, the assault on the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) community.”

Northam’s obsession with divisive social issues, instead of pocketbook issues, means that if you’re looking for a job in an abortion mill, Northam’s your man, otherwise it’s time to start listening to the Republicans.

Mark my words, during this election the Republican ticket will be talking about jobs, taxes and transportation, while the Democrats travel the state brandishing the bloody coat hanger and accusing the GOP of concentrating on “divisive social issues.” Psychiatrists call it projection.

Meanwhile the WaPost will be doing it’s best to drive E.W. Jackson out of the race. Right now the focus is on financial problems. Jackson was behind on his taxes and has filed for bankruptcy in the past. He is now current on all his tax bills, which puts him ahead of the 1,289 Treasury Department employees who collectively owe $9.3 million in back taxes.

Jackson also regrets his bankruptcy, “It was painful. It was difficult. It was embarrassing. I don’t like the idea of not paying off debts.” Compare Jackson’s situation to that of Democrat nominee for governor, Terry McAuliffe. He convinced the taxpayers of Mississippi to give his GreenTech company $7 million in “growth and prosperity” tax exemptions and another $8 million in grants, loans and land in return for building a factory, creating jobs and manufacturing “green” cars.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “…GreenTech looks to be a lemon…there is no evidence the company is manufacturing any cars…(it) has yet to begin building its flagship factory in Tunica. GreenTech is the latest proof…the political class is adept at hooking up cronies and investors with taxpayer dollars. But creating jobs? No can do.”

Rather than be tied down by bad publicity and previous commitments, McAuliffe resigned from GreenTech and walked away from all obligations, while Jackson stayed to face his.

But Jackson’s real sin, as far as the Posties are concerned, is that he’s a Tea Party conservative. Jackson has escaped the Democrat Leftist plantation, once again pointing out the need for the Fugitive Minority Act (co–sponsored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) that would return ideological escapees to the Democrats for re–education and relieve the media of dealing with off–message minorities that do not support amnesty, abortion and alternate lifestyles.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell willfully murdered innocent

babies born alive and faces death penalty

Dr. Gosnell was an abortionist who not only murdered the innocents with a passion that can only have been replicated during the dark days of Nazi Germany’s practice of eliminating the Jewish people during World War II. Now with Gosnell’s conviction, this dark pathological practice can no longer be ignored by the media and even those who claim to support abortion rights.

Dr. Gosnell, according to the Wall Street Journal, was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Karnamaya Mongar, who died due to a sedation overdose. Yet, this murder trial which produced dozens of counts by a grand jury against the doctor’s murderous practices also created a media blackout that noted journalist Kirsten Powers noted in her USA Today op-ed, “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.” Kirsten went on to rightly stress, “This should be front page news!”

Now one of the most important chapters in the annuals of American jurisprudence will occur in the coming days. Should Dr. Kermit Gosnell be sentenced to death for his horrifying murders which shock the conscience of his jurors? For these jurors the memories of coming to terms with count after count of Dr. Gosnell’s horrifying misdeeds will surely haunt them past their decision to give him life without parole or death by execution.

This decision by the jurors actually is a turning point for those who support breaking the binding repressive liberal media attacks on those who have stood for supporting a baby’s right to life and to be called a baby and not a “fetus”. It is important that this distinction is heralded across this nation, now and forever more. A baby was murdered, and a man was convicted for each and every murder the jury found Gosnell guilty of.

But the decision in this case does not end the dialogue concerning the murdering of babies who are aborted. Rather it signals a clarion call for each and every man and woman who understands that a baby is born and is viable and has a right to live in this country, not by political decision but by his or her God given right!

If Dr. Gosnell takes the stand to ask for leniency from the jury who can order that he be put to death, he should bear witness to the truth of his guilt and be willing to take the full measure of the punishment. In truth, Dr. Gosnell should be punished with the ultimate sentence, since he committed the ultimate crime in depriving these innocent babies the right to life given to each by their creator, God.

___________________

(Let me know what you think)

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

(H/T ConservativeVideos.com and Alfonzo Rachel)

This video needs no description. The title says it all.

I have to concur! The only words I have are emotions… angry, and sad! This is truly what our nation has become!

‘…never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering.” Deuteronomy 18:10

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.

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.”

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.

KSLA News 12 Shreveport, Louisiana News Weather

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 )

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

Last night, the following statement was made during the Vice Presidential debate regarding the decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to force virtually all employers to include sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion, in the health insurance coverage they provide their employees:

“With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution-Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital-none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain “religious employers.” That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to “Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital,” or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional “accommodation” for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as “non-exempt.” That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation “to pay for contraception” and “to be a vehicle to get contraception.” They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

USCCB continues to urge HHS, in the strongest possible terms, actually to eliminate the various infringements on religious freedom imposed by the mandate.

For more details, please see USCCB’s regulatory comments filed on May 15 regarding the proposed “accommodation”: www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/upload/comments-on-advance-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-preventive-services-12-05-15.pdf

The Widow’s mite of Biblical fame.

Tim Kaine — known here as Gov. Flowmax after closing Virginia’s interstate rest stops — occasionally comes down on the right side of an issue. During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate between Senate candidates Kaine and former Sen. George Allen, Kaine observed that he would be “open” to the idea of everyone paying some level of federal income tax.

Subsequent media and online coverage was dominated by the charge that Kaine wants to tax everyone. Republican websites instantly pounced on the tax statement in an effort to put Kaine on the defensive. This is typical of today’s politics where candidates and consultants go for short–term political advantage at the cost of long term damage to the country.

Readers of last week’s column know I think it’s a good idea for every adult to pay federal tax. Otherwise some enjoy Taxation Without Participation where those who don’t pay federal taxes are happy to vote for politicians who will increase the taxes of those who do.

There is no government free lunch, although it may seem like it as long as the Chinese allow Uncle Sam to run a tab. If everyone pays, then everyone is aware of the cost of government when taxes increase. Normally Democrats oppose this.

The whole idea of some individuals being exempt from responsibility is another of the modern “progressive” ideas that have done so much to damage the nation. “Forward” into oblivion one might say.

Contrast “progressive” tax policy with Biblical tithe policy. God — who one would think knows something about the human heart and fairness — did not exempt anyone from paying their obligation. Luke 21:1 – 4 relates the incident of the widow’s mite: And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

The widow’s poverty did not exempt her, in fact it served to glorify her. Yet modern man, who evidently has a more finely attuned sense of justice than God, doesn’t think everyone should contribute to the nation’s upkeep. What’s more, the widow paid the same percentage tithe as those in “their abundance.” Proving God doesn’t believe in “progressive” tax rates either, but that’s a topic for another column.

Kaine was also asked if he supports eliminating charitable and mortgage interest deductions. Kaine answered that he supports broadening the base and rather than enduring a political battle over each deduction, he supports setting an aggregate total.

What this innocuous phrase means is Kaine wants the federal government to decide what’s a reasonable amount for you to give to charity. I’m sure if Kaine has his way the federally–approved donation deduction will be somewhere between the widow’s mite that Joe Biden delivers by motorcade each December 25^th and the 30 percent Mitt Romney has donated to charity in 2011.

If instituted, the fed’s final decision on what’s allowed will be closer to the 3 to 5 percent charitable average for the US. For Christians who give a 10 percent tithe, this means they will be paying taxes on at least half of the money they donate. Proving Leviathan tolerates the worship of God as long as you save some Mammon for it.

This is a curious policy for a Catholic like Kaine to support, but it’s not the only issue where the former governor has a secular take on his faith. When the subject came up Kaine didn’t come right out and say he supported “abortion.” After all, this wasn’t the Democrat National Convention where abortion is part of the party platform.

Kaine’s genuflection came when he declared support for a woman’s right to exercise “constitutional choices.” But certainly not the “constitutional choice” that allows a woman to carry a concealed weapon. Kaine’s bloodless euphemism is just his feeble attempt to conceal the ugly truth of abortion.

Kaine will tell you that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, but is not willing to impose his beliefs on others. This is a classic dodge that weaselly Southern Democrats have been using for over 200 years.

Before the Civil War Democrats claimed to be personally opposed to slavery, but unwilling to impose their beliefs on the planter aristocracy.

The outcome in the one case was involuntary servitude, in the other involuntary death. I fail to see any improvement in Democrat philosophy over the years.

It’s a real shame that Tim Kaine is not willing to extend his “open” to everyone paying taxes to being “open” to everyone being born.