Labels aside, 61% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances

Though only 45% of Americans polled by Gallup labeled themselves as "Pro-Life," 22% said that abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" and 39% said that abortion should be legal in "only a few circumstances."  (Link to story here.)

While I do find it sad that 39% of Americans support legal abortion in most or all circumstances, I'm choosing to be positive today and happy that a significant majority of people oppose most abortions, despite what we see in the media.  This is good news.

Keep talking.  Keep persuading.  The truth will win out and one day, some day, in some generation, with God's help, human beings will stop killing their children.

Why elections matter . . .

Meet Joe Pitts (R-Penn.).  With the G.O.P. takeover of the House of Representatives coming in January, he will be the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.  (Link to story here.)  According to the National Right to Life Committee, Congressman Pitts has "made protection of the sanctity of innocent human life the cornerstone of his service in the House."  And, even more impressive, a VP of the euphemistically-named Planned Parenthood Federation of America described Pitts as "as anti-choice as a member of Congress can be."  That's good enough for me.

What "Planned Parenthood" is saying, in their typical doublespeak spin, is that Joe Pitts is Pro-Life.  He won't support legalized infanticide and will do everything in his power to eradicate abortion or, at the very least, prevent your money and mine - taxpayer money, the only kind that the government has - from funding the wanton slaughter of children.

This is why we vote for Republicans.  Now let us all hope and pray that with (some) power they can make a difference.

Federal Judge blocks federal funds for destruction of human embryos . . . for now

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Obama administration's policy allowing the National Institutes of Health to fund embryonic stem cell research on new cell lines, a.k.a. experimentation on newly slaughtered children.  (Link to story here .)

Kudos to you Judge Lamberth.  But, his ruling is not final and whatever final ruling the judge makes is subject to appeal.

Nevertheless, this is good news, at least for the time being.

It's full steam ahead on embryonic stem cell trials in humans!

Despite the fact that the use of embryonic stem cells in animals has raised health concerns for the recipients of the treatment . . .

Despite the fact that the use of adult stem cells in humans is already treating human disease without those health concerns . . .

Despite the fact that harvesting embryonic stem cells requires the death and destruction of a live, growing, human fetus . . .

And despite the fact that scientists are concerned the company proposing the trial hasn't done the requisite animal testing . . .

Barack Obama's Food and Drug Administration has approved an application for a clinical trial injecting cells derived from aborted children into other human beings.  (Link to story here .)

Why the rush?

Abortion advocates, like Obama and most (if not all) Democrats, are on the wrong side of the moral debate.  And they know it.

They're desperately seeking to plant the "necessity" of killing babies to cure disease into the American psyche.  They're rushing embryonic stem cell research because they can't afford to have ethically-derived, adult stem cells curing all the diseases reserved as "moral" justification for aborting children.

This is making me sick.

Bart Stupak must be proud . . . U.S. Government to fund killing of Pennsylvania children

It has now been reported (link here ) that the Obama administration, despite empty promises and even a sham of an Executive Order to the contrary, has decided to use American taxpayers' money - yours, mine, and even Bart Stupak's, to fund abortion in Pennsylvania.

The liar-in-chief, a.k.a. Barack Obama, had promised that under Obamacare, "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

So much for Obama promises.  Would you like your Obamacare vote back Bart?

If only . . .

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, claims that her favorite word is "the Word."  The Word made flesh through Jesus Christ.  (Link here.)  "And that Word is," Pelosi continued, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word."

I certainly wish that Ms. Pelosi would live up to that.

She should, especially since she realizes that "we have to make sure we're prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up."

Maybe it is time to stop supporting the widespread destruction of human life Madam Speaker.

A fight for life . . . and a sad, lonely, horrible death

So sad but, unfortunately, so true . . .

On Saturday, doctors attempted to abort a baby boy, 22 weeks into his life after conception, in Rossano, Italy.  When the doctors failed in their attempts to legally kill the baby, they simply left him to die, wrapped in a sheet, presumably alone, and struggling to survive.  When a hospital chaplain went to pray beside the boy's body on Sunday, he found him alive, moving and breathing.  The boy was immediately taken to the neo-natal unit at another hospital.  Unfortunately, he died on Monday.  The police are investigating the case as a homicide.  (Link to story here.)

Here's the reality of human law - in Italy, as in America today - killing a viable human being, capable of survival outside of his or her mother's womb is legal.  But, remove that same human being from the womb, and suddenly, miraculously, that human's human rights kick in and it is no longer legal to kill him or her.

Inside - no rights at all, not even to live.  Outside - human rights, including the right to live.

Is this not a completely artificial boundary?  Human beings, growing, moving, living, as human beings are entitled to human rights.  Those rights must be protected.  Human law must change.  Abortion must end.  Life must be protected.

Allow this sad story to have a positive impact.  Tell it to everyone you know.  Use it to show the sham and selfishness and horror of abortion.  Allow the life of this Italian baby to have some greater meaning.

Obama has no "litmus test" on abortion for Supreme Court nominations . . . yeah, right.

According to Barack Obama, he has no "litmus test" on the issue of abortion when it comes to choosing his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.  (Link to story here.)

That would be great, if only it was true.  Obama's claim is simply another example of him saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear.  Instead of simply telling the truth - he won't nominate anyone who he believes would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade - Obama, instead, speaks in code saying that he will "choose a nominee who pays heed to women's rights [except, of course, unborn women] and privacy when interpreting the Constitution."  That code, of course, means the same thing.

Don't be fooled.  And don't think that Barack Obama has an open mind on abortion and the Supreme Court.

Abortion's Reductio ad absurdum . . . too bad it is true

"Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications to a logical but absurd consequence."

Today, while waiting with my sleeping daughter in her carseat in the back of the family minivan, I read this story.  It sickened me.  Because of the evil policies of the Communist government in China, about 30 million little baby girls have been killed.  And that's just in the generation that will be "of marriageable age" in 2020.  How many millions more have been murdered since the one-child policy began in 1979?

Wholesale slaughter of girls, to this extreme, is a reduction of the horror of abortion to an absurd extreme.  But unfortunately for the world, this absurdity is devastatingly true.

Why there are Democrats . . . and why those of you who pay income tax are going to pay more and more and more

I don't often make mistakes and even more rarely admit one but     . . . 

For much of my adult life, I've been convinced that if the issue of abortion, magically or by the grace of God, ceased to exist, so would the Democrat Party in the United States.  It is their rallying cry.  It is the brush with which they paint conservatives as extreme Bible-thumping misogynists.  But I've been wrong.

Democrats also exist because they take money from you and me and give it to their voters. They redistribute wealth from one group of people to another and, in that way, buy power with money that isn't even theirs to begin with.

What convinced me?  This story from Stephen Ohlemacher at the Associated Press.  In it, Ohlemacher reports that nearly half - 47% of all American households will pay NOTHING in federal income taxes this year.  Nothing!  We have "a tax system that exempt almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education."

And, get this, a full 40% of American households "make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.  For those people, the government sends them a payment."  This is highway robbery on a massive, nationwide scale.

Did you realize that if your in the 53% that actually pays taxes in this country that the government is taking some of your money and handing it directly to 40% of your neighbors?

So where does all the money the government spends come from?  Well, the government either borrows it or it comes from the 70% of all tax revenue that comes from the top 10% of earners nationwide.  

70% comes from 10% while NOTHING comes from 47% . . . and most of that 47% actually get a check in the mail from the rest of us marked "courtesy of your friends in Washington, D.C."

So why does this breathe life into the Democrats?  Simple.  The Democrats stand for more government, more programs, more handouts.  And isn't it easy to support a party that wants more government, more programs, and more handouts, if you're benefiting but don't have to pay?

The Democrats stand for higher taxes . . . but only on the so-called wealthy.  Right now, the "wealthy" constitutes 53% of us - the taxpayers.

If we don't stand up to them now, when we're still a slight majority, what power could the Democrats wield if their 47% natural base of non-taxpaying Americans became a slight majority?  In a democracy, how much could 51% of the citizens take from 49%?

The answer, as anyone reading this far should know, is scary!

If the federal income tax is continued - and not replaced with a different funding mechanism entirely - a flat tax rate with minimal deductions is the way to go.  Every American who earns an income should be entitled to one standard deduction, at or near a true poverty line, the minimal amount of money that it would take to feed, house, and clothe oneself and his or her dependents, then on a certain percentage of every dollar earned after that should be taxed.  I'd have to check many more numbers and do math beyond my skill-set to choose the appropriate percentage but if everyone paid the same percentage, the rich would still pay more (since they earn more) but those earning less would still have a personal stake in tax policy.  

But, guess what, that's not likely to happen.  Why not?  Too many people like the system just the way it is.  The Democrats couldn't stand to give up the power to take money from you to buy votes from their constituencies.  Never.

The Democrats have to go folks.  The message could not be clearer.  Now is the time.  This is the year.  Clean out Congress in November.  Your wallet and your country depend on it.

(By the way, lest you believe that I'm as cocky as Michael "Big Mike" Lynche on American Idol, whose chestnuts were pulled from the fire by the judges tonight - and who by all appearances felt that he, by his very being and greatness, was entitled to their gift of a second chance, the introductory paragraph at the beginning of this post was done for effect . . . mostly.)

Juxtaposition

It is universally accepted that infanticide after birth (as seen in this French case) is evil, horrid, and criminal, while abortion remains legal.

Can anyone from the "Pro-Choice" community explain to me what a difference a day makes?

Pray for the resolve of these House Democrats . . .

Bart Stupak - Michigan;

Dan Lipinski - Illinois;

James Oberstar - Minnesota;

Kathy Dahlkemper - Pennsylvania;

Steve Driehaus - Ohio;

Marion Berry - Arkansas; and

Joe Donnelly - Indiana.

These seven Democrats voted for Nancy Pelosi's Obamacare bill on Christmas Eve.  But all seven are Pro-Life and have gone on record declaring that they will vote "no" on the current version of healthcare "reform" because that Senate bill fails to prevent federal tax dollars from funding abortion.  As Representative Lipinski put it, "protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle."  (Link to story here.)

Seven votes may not seem like a groundswell but seven is enough to block passage of the current Senate bill (if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat majority follows rules and decorum, which they might not) and 41 Republicans can now filibuster any other version.

But, as we saw with Senator Ben Nelson, a "Pro-Life" Democrat from Nebraska, the White House and congressional leadership will put enormous pressure on these seven representatives in an effort to get what they want - no matter the cost.

So, again, I ask you to pray for their resolve to stand for principle in the face of unbelievable pressure from their fellow Democrats. 

Obama's plan would use federal funds for abortion

Just when we thought we could sleep at night, Obamacare is back with a vengeance . . .

The rightly-hailed 41st Republican vote in the senate has already shown a willingness to vote with the Democrats.  (Link to story here.)

The White House has signaled its intention to railroad Obamacare into law with or without 60 votes in the Senate.  (Link to story here.)

And, according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the "compromise" plan unveiled by President Obama today "would allow direct federal funding of abortion-on-demand through community health centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion-on-demand, including some federally administered plans, and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."  (Link to story here.)

What's going on?  Can't Obama and his liberal friends see that the American people don't want this?

Of course they can.  They just don't care.  If the monstrosity known as healthcare "reform" passes this year, it will be so entrenched that it will be nearly impossible to roll back.  Though the GOP stands a chance gain control of Congress following the mid-term elections in November, it would take a major miracle to get a veto-proof majority.  So the Democrats know that whatever they pass this year cannot realistically be changed until after the 2012 presidential election and, by then, they are banking on Obamacare being an entitlement program as politically impossible to cut as social security.

To make this a reality, they're willing to risk their personal political fortunes.  Doing so would be anathema to the Democrats but reality may already have set in.  Their political lot has already been cast.  They know that they're doomed.  With the elections ahead already lost, they have nothing more to lose.

Massive - MASSIVE - public outcry is needed to stop Obamacare now.  Bigger than the town halls.  Bigger than the tea parties.

Unfortunately, even that may not be enough.  It may not be enough because Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the liberals in Washington really, really, don't care what you think.

A breathtakingly sick abortion story

It is so near unspeakable that I'm choosing not to write more.  Just read the story at this link to know what I'm talking or, should I say, not talking about.

Why is a commercial about Pam Tebow's "choice" to keep her baby controversial?

Yesterday, I posted the upcoming commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother's decision not to kill him in 1987. Though the commercial is clearly Pro-Life, why is the "Pro-Choice" community up in arms. Erin Matson a V.P. of the National Organization for Women called the commercial "frankly offensive." She claimed it was "hate masquerading as love. It sends a message that abortion is always a mistake." And Jehmu Greene of the Women's Media Center plans to hold "CBS and the NFL and the other Super Bowl advertisers accountable for inserting an exceedingly controversial issue" into the Super Bowl. (Link to story here.)

Why is this controversial? Aren't these people supposed to be in favor of "choice"? Shouldn't they be applauding the "choice" that Pam Tebow made?

Or are these people finally showing their true colors. They're not "Pro-Choice." They're simply, and sadly, "Pro-Abortion."

Tim Tebow is my new favorite quarterback

Why? Tebow will be appearing in a Pro-Life Super Bowl commercial for Focus on the Family. (Link to story here.) Apparently, the Heisman Trophy winning quarterback came after a difficult pregnancy. But his mother chose life.

Thank God for all the mothers who choose life.

One day, may they all.

Residence of Evil

Where does evil live?  Unfortunately it lives in many cities and many neighborhoods.

Evil is taking up residence in a six-story palace in Houston, though, as Planned Parenthood is renovating the old bank building shown here (ironically shaped like a cash register) to turn it into a 78,000 square foot abortion clinic.  It "will include a surgical wing equipped to provide late term abortions."  (Link to the sad and disgusting story here.)

The Call to Conscience is organizing a January 18 protest rally and prayer march near the site.  For details, link here.

Harry Reid's "Healthcare" Bill and the Missouri Senate Race

Robin Carnahan, the presumptive nominee of Missouri's Democrats for the U.S. Senate in 2010, finally spoke up about something. And, guess what, she's an Obama, Reid, Pelosi, McCaskill-liberal Democrat. On Christmas Eve, shortly after the Senate vote on Harry Reid's version of Obamacare, Carnahan issued a statement praising the bill and blasting Roy Blunt, her GOP rival. Blunt, instead, blasted the bill. (Link to Jo Mannies' story from the St. Louis Beacon here.)

In short, Carnahan would have voted "Yes" and Blunt would have voted "No."

Missourians will have a clear choice for Senate in 2010. Robin Carnahan supports socialized medicine and taxpayer subsidized abortion, not to mention the devastation of the American economy and bursting budget deficit. Roy Blunt doesn't.

Thanks Robin, for showing some of your true colors . . . finally.

Even a Lib can be right once in a while

According to this post at The Hill, the aptly-named Louise Slaughter, a Democrat congresswoman from New York, the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, is suggesting that the Senate's version of Obamacare is such a mess that it is unworthy of a vote in the House.  She's suggesting that House and Senate versions of healthcare "reform" cannot be reconciled and that Congress should scrap them both and start over or, as she said, "go back to the drawing board."

Welcome to the Party

Former Democrat, Congressman Parker Griffith of Georgia, has joined the Republican Party.  (Link here.)

Why?  

Obamacare.  It's as simple as that.

According to Griffith (in the story linked above) . . .

"I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt."

. . .

"I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill [Obamacare] is bad for our doctors.  [He might know what he's talking about here - he is a doctor.]  It's bad for our patients.  It's bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field."

Who's next?  Bart Stupak?

Come on in conservative/Reagan Democrats.  The water's fine.