Gosnell’s House of Horrors

Supporters of Planned Parenthood

Supporters of Planned Parenthood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

This crime is really too horrific to dwell on comfortably, but it is an example of what happens when human life is thought to be cheap. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the murder of  infants who survived their late-term abortions. He uses a procedure called snipping which basically involves cutting the baby’s spinal cord with scissors. While this sounds like the stuff of horror movies, it is real life. The acts are not denied. It is more of a matter of whether this behavior is wrong in the eyes of the law. This is a mirror held up for the American people to consider what happens when we say it is okay to kill certain innocent humans. Where do we draw the line? Please go to Colson Center to learn more about what we can do to stop this kind of heinous crime. The documentary about this crime is called 3801 Lancaster… the street address of the clinic.

 

Fox News to air 1 hour special broadcast this Sunday

 

YouTube Documentary of Gosnell’s “medical” practices

 

Advertisements

Community of Women?

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria ...

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although widely criticized from both sides, the callous video celebrating 40 years of abortion-rights Roe v. Wade  featuring actor Mehcad Brooks dovetailed perfectly with the Marxist call for the “community of women” in which the Communist Manifesto basically calls for women to have no restriction on who, when, and for how much they will sleep with men. Really what they meant was for women to be community property. I can imagine that this sounds great to an amoral Marxist man but what woman feels properly valued in that state? If you don’t believe me read it for yourself below. Then ask yourself if the current state of morality on high school and college campuses more closely approximates the “Communist ideal” or a practice that is actually healthy for women?

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

–from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto

Black Voters, Democrats, Republicans, and History

Ku Klux Klan members and a burning cross, Denv...

Ku Klux Klan members and a burning cross, Denver, Colorado, 1921

I recently enjoyed a segment on the The World and Everything in It with Alonzo Rachel giving a brief overview of black American history vis a vis the Republican party. I’ll include a brief synopsis below.

The fact is that it was the Republican Party under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for black emancipation from slavery. The Republican Party was actually a fairly new party arising from the growing popularity of abolitionists. It was the Democrats that actually seceded from the country and formed the Confederate slave holding States. After losing the Civil War, it was the Democratic Party that formed the KKK in order to violently kill Republicans both white and black and convince them with basically terrorism to stop trying to have influence in the South.  Decades later the opportunity for the civil rights movement was helped by Republicans who drafted the 1960s civil rights legislation during a session of Congress before LBJ, a Democrat got behind it. That civil rights legislation actually passed with 100 percent of the Republican vote but only a portion of the Democrat vote.

I agree that we have forgotten so much history. I recently was talking to a new acquaintance on a plane ride home. He mentioned how the Republicans had a lot of work to do to overcome their sordid past. He mentioned the KKK as one example. People need to be told that all that was from the Democratic party. Myself, I don’t hold to party loyalty. I hold to principle loyalty. I consider myself a Christian first, a conservative next, and a Republican as long as their candidates stand for Christian principles. Historically the Republican party has tended to stand for what is right. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of misinformation in the last 150 years. And there has been resulting slippage and confusion of direction. There are some changes that need to be made in the Republican party, but not in the liberal direction.

Alonzo Rachel also made a spoof of the recent ad celebrating the 4oth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. He makes it clear how abortion is welcomed by many as a racist practice.

National Right to Life Month

Abortion card001

Abortion card001 (Photo credit: John Ensor)

As we reflect on the 55 million missing Americans who were murdered in last 40 years following the legalization of abortion, where would our nation be if we had those 55 million people? …if we had 55 million more hard-working creative, productive, taxpaying citizens? Could we have discovered a cure for cancer? Maybe we snuffed out the life of the inventor who could have solved our energy crisis. Did we do away with a modern day Mozart or a 20th century George Washington? What about the over 100 million missing women in East Asia? With whom will those preferred sex men marry and raise families? And why couldn’t we pass a ban on sex-selective abortion here in America? Don’t we believe in equal rights for women even before birth?

As we teach our children in our classrooms, stop and think about the fact that each one of them is actually an abortion survivor …because for the last 40 years it has been legal to murder children in America.

Schools as Subversive

The Morning After Pill

The Morning After Pill (Photo credit: VixyView)

The CATCH program in New York City is distributing the morning after pill to teens as young as 14. School nurses do not have to get permission from parents. This is an opt-out program where parents can sign a document so their children cannot get the pills. 1-2% of the those forms have been returned. The stated purpose of the program is to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: currently at around 7,000 per year in NYC schools.

 

I know of a sure-fire method to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: abstain from sex. As a side benefit, this method protects against STDs as well. It sounds like a winner to me. But… somehow this method is not an option for the New York Department of Education.

 

Is this the work in which we in the public schools want to be involved? One spokesperson said that if they needed parental permission to distribute the birth control/abortifacient medications, it would defeat the purpose of program. “You have to step into the real world not kind of what seems right. And the truth is, if parents had to be asked before Plan B was given to a girl In many, many, probably the most of those instances the girl is going to say, ‘Don’t call my parents.'”

 

Translation: government schools are willing to subvert parental rights and support young people in taking part in activities, in this case, sexual activities, that are not acceptable to their parents. Are we as teachers willing to be a part of that? I’m not.

 

You can listen to a news feature including the quote from above, here: The World and Everything In It | WORLD

 

NYC Schools dispensing morning after pill to girls

 

Tax payer funded drugs without a prescription

 

New York Post article

 

 

 

Freedom of Religion

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does freedom of religion mean? Is freedom of religion a nebulous concept that must conform to the dictates of the government? Is it squishy? Can it be pushed to whatever size box the government allows for it? Obamacare includes a  mandate to provide abortifacient drugs. Many of us have problems with this from a moral point of view founded on our religion.  But we are private citizens. The HHS exemption only covers churches and some religious institutions. So has the president and his party decided that the freedom of religion of the private citizen is not important? What does our freedom of religion really mean?

 

 

It seems to me that if we can be forced to purchase medicine to initiate the murder of innocent unborn children, we have crossed a line of freedom of religion. If the intention of our founders was to consider sexual freedom on a par with religious freedom, wouldn’t we find it the first amendment? or somewhere in the Constitution? But we don’t find it because it isn’t there. The founders placed freedom of religion in a prominent location. But they didn’t raise the issue of sexual freedom. Do you suppose they didn’t have sex back then? Of course not. First of all, our founders knew that the area of sexual relations is governed by the Bible and trusted this area to the self-government of the people and the common law which is founded on the Bible. Second, sexual freedom leads to social chaos. Many of the social ills that we have in our country today can be directly linked to “sexual freedom”: 50 million Americans dead, epidemic STDs, single-parent families, poverty, crime, prison expansion, the growing welfare state.

 

 

What do you think? What should freedom of religion mean? On what do you base that meaning?

 

 

Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare

English: The United States Supreme Court, the ...

English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whether the Supreme Court rules favor of keeping Obamacare or strikes it down, we need to take action on a couple of important issues.

First, we must carefully examine and plan health care policies in light of scriptural principles. One of those bedrock principles must be the sanctity of human life. Recent examples of pro-choice advocates refusing to condemn sex selective abortion highlight the need to draw a clear line of demarcation for life. Religious liberty is another necessary anchor. Forcing people to violate their consciences because of a healthcare plan is unconscionable.
Second, no matter how the justices rule on ObamaCare we need to begin to push back the amount of power that has been given over to our Supreme Court and the federal judicial system. We should put forth an amendment to the Constitution limiting the term of Supreme Court justices to 12 years. The practice that Supreme Court justices be appointed (not elected!) and then serve for 30 or 40 years completely molding the face of America in their image has allowed some to push a radical leftist agenda. This is not what our founding fathers intended. If you look at the abuses listed in the Declaration of Independence you can see that the rulings of one person or one small untouchable group of people was not the plan for our country. Our court system has become an opportunity for tyranny or as some would call it an oligarchy. We need to take back our country and set our course again by the biblical principles under which we started.
What do you think? Has Supreme Court power overgrown its intended boundaries? Would you prefer term limits, or reaffirmation votes?