Women Are “Hurting and Fearful” of Trump? — What About Babies’ Anxiety Toward “Pro-Choice”?

Featured

Reactions to the defeat of the Left’s darling, Hillary Clinton, are becoming borderline psychotic.Today, the day after Trump’s inauguration, many thousands are protesting in the streets of Washington D.C. because women are “hurting and fearful” of him according to a Fox News report.

True, the new President’s public behavior toward women has been less than gentlemanly in numerous instances over the years.  Such words and actions were unjustifiably commonplace for generations including the early Baby Boomer years.  Could it be that they anticipate Trump would be a greater threat to women in the White House than fellow 1946-born President Clinton and his abuse of women while in office?

Unlikely.  From outward appearances, the Trumps’ marriage is a faithful one, not born out of political expediency.  It is this writer’s opinion that if there were infidelity, Melania would not stand for it and cover it up as others have said Hillary Clinton did for her husband.2, 3

The concern for having Trump in the White House is unreasonable.  What IS reasonable, would be the unborn’s justified fear of the “Pro-Choice” crowd, led by the Clintons, who support of legalized murder via Roe v. Wade.  Chemical death and/or dismemberment are the ultimate abuse.  Protecting those who hide behind the shield of a Supreme court decision as flawed as the Dred Scott decision4, is the reality that none of the targeted victims will ever be able to have their own protest march for the nation to see.  That is something to be upset about.

 

 

1 – “Psychotic disorders are a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind. They make it hard for someone to think clearly, make good judgments, respond emotionally, communicate effectively, understand reality, and behave appropriately.

“When symptoms are severe, people with psychotic disorders have trouble staying in touch with reality and often are unable to handle daily life. But even severe psychotic disorders usually can be treated.”  http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/mental-health-psychotic-disorders#1

2 – “Here’s The Story On The Bill Clinton Rape Allegation,” by Jonathan Cohn and Ryan Grim, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-broaddrick_us_57fae930e4b0e655eab54dee, 10/16/2016.

3 – “A Brief History Of Juanita Broaddrick, The Woman Accusing Bill Clinton Of Rape,” by Eydar Peralta, http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape, 10/9/2016.

4 – “In March 1857, in one of the most controversial events preceding the American Civil War (1861-65), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. The case had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri.  Scott argued that his time spent in these locations entitled him to emancipation.  In his decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a staunch supporter of slavery, disagreed: The court found that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom.  The Dred Scott decision incensed abolitionists and heightened North-South tensions, which would erupt in war just three years later.”  http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case

Advertisements

Liberals Should Be in Favor of Sanctuary Cities for the Innocent Unborn

Featured

The mayors of two sanctuary cities, Chicago and San Francisco, have spoken recently about continuing to defy federal law when Trump takes office.

Rahm Emanuel of Chicago: “Now, administrations may change, but our values and principles as it relates to inclusion does not.” and Ed Lee of San Francisco: “Being a sanctuary city, for me, is the DNA of San Francisco.”1,2

Granted, it becomes a matter of compassion and practicality to even consider trying to deport all “illegals.”  HOWEVER, these cities create an indefensible morality of their own when they also fail to detain undocumenteds with criminal records:

“In a recent column published in the Omaha World-Herald, Michelle Root called on the Nebraska legislature to bar sanctuary city policies that allowed a drunk illegal alien driver to kill her 21-year old daughter, Sarah, on January 31.
Prosecutors reported that the 19-year-old was charged with motor vehicular homicide, but was released on just a $5,000 bond – and then quickly disappeared.”3

And it’s not a recent phenomenon (12 years ago):

“In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These ‘sanctuary policies’ generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.”4

—  With all of this “compassion” in opposition to federal laws which protect the innocent, the next natural step would be for these rogue cities to stop the killing of unborn babies who have not broken any laws!… You’re right.  No chance of that in this upside-down culture.

 
1 – “Mayor says Chicago will ‘always be a sanctuary city’ in face of deportation threats,” by http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/15/mayor-says-chicago-will-always-be-sanctuary-city-in-face-deportation-threats.html, 11/15/2016.

2 – “Mayor Lee: SF will remain sanctuary city despite Trump presidency,” by Michael Barba, http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-sf-will-remain-sanctuary-city-despite-trump-presidency/, 11/10/2016.

3 – “Illegal aliens in sanctuary cities getting away with murder,” by Chad Groening, http://www.onenewsnow.com/national-security/2016/11/10/illegal-aliens-in-sanctuary-cities-getting-away-with-murder, 11/10/2016.4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

4 – “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” http://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html, winter 2004.

Parallel: Overlooking a Candidate’s Stand on Abortion or Concentration Camps

Featured

“Litmus test” issues have been denigrated by the press for so long that most citizens are reluctant to suggest that some legitimate ones exist.

There is one foundational right without which all other rights cannot emanate.  It is one which the Supreme Court tied itself in knots in 1973 using bizarre logic regarding privacy to take away the Right to Life and legalize abortion.

Without protecting life at its very beginning, every other cause is irrelevant.

“It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.” –Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life1

A certain way to raise a liberal’s ire is to say a particular judge should not be considered for the Supreme Court unless he/ she is pro-life.  They would rail against such a “litmus test.”

But suppose a candidate for Congress was asked for an opinion about the concentration camps in Germany during World War II.  What would the Left say if that individual passed on that by saying those killing camps were the business of the Germans and we should not have taken a stance at that time because their legal system allowed it?  Would the secular news channels have enough hours in a broadcasting day to declare that this candidate was unqualified?

Both the right to life and concentration camp issues are legitimate “litmus tests.”  It defies logic that only the second one is acceptable.  The only conclusion which can be drawn is that, to most “progressives”, all lives are not created equal.

 

1http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/living-the-gospel-of-life.cfm

 

Send Planned Parenthood Federal Funds to Help the Fight Against Zika

Featured

Many debates have surprisingly simple resolutions if we would just step back and identify the priorities.  We would often find that two supposedly separate issues can easily be merged into one solution.

Such is the case of the Senate battle involving a bill to fund research in the fight against the Zika virus. Democrats are currently fighting it because, while the bill would allocate $40 million to community health centers to assist in this endeavor, it does not send funds to one of the Democrats’ favorite social agenda provider, Planned Parenthood.1

Their support for the organization which kills 300,000 unborn babies annually is legendary.2  In a way, it’s not surprising that they are willing to hinder Zika research in favor of one of their pet projects.

Their argument is that Planned Parenthood can provide contraception which would prevent the creation of any babies which might display the damage caused by Zika.  However, those willing to accept the use of artificial means to prevent conception do not have to be reliant on Planned Parenthood.

Step  Back  to  See  the  Resolution

The debate can be boiled down to two aspects.  On one hand, we have a potential health calamity which has numerous health impacts including birth defects.  On the other, we have an organization which receives $500 million in federal subsidies annually and whose primary mission/ source of income is the indiscriminate killing of unborn babies.

This becomes simple:  stop giving the $500 million of taxpayer money to the killing organization and apply it to the $1+ billion needed to prevent the suffering of babies and their families as a result of the Zika virus.

Sure, we’ll hear how Planned Parenthood might not be applying the $500 million directly to abortions.  But what this subsidy does is free their other financial assets to the killing processes and go to the bottom line of the anti-life organization.

Not convinced?  Here’s an analogy.  Suppose there’s a Senate bill written to fund orphanages, especially those who have children with special needs.  In this theoretical case, let’s say the Mafia also had a medical arm through which it launders money via medical device companies.

Would these pro-Planned Parenthood individuals be willing to allocate federal funds to these Mafia-sponsored medical companies. After all, the money is not going directly to their criminal activities.

Does anyone NOT see the serious moral problems with such an arrangement?3

Case closed, no federal funds for any organization engaged in first-degree killing regardless of the other activities it may be involved with.

 

 

1 – “Finally, and probably most importantly, Senate Democrats are upset that the Zika appropriations bill does not allocate funding for Planned Parenthood, arguing that it leaves women without care options. But, that’s not true. The bill allocates $40 million for community health centers that are more plentiful and offer a wider range of care, plus $6 million for the National Health Service Corps and $95 million to the Social Services Grant Program that can distribute funds for preventive care to the most at-risk areas. It is simply not the job of the federal government to fund the nation’s largest abortion provider, and it is unconscionable that Senate Democrats would block funding aimed to help protect pregnant women and babies because their friends at Planned Parenthood don’t get a cut.”  “Roby: Democrats are blocking Zika funding because Planned Parenthood doesn’t get a cut,” by Martha Roby, http://yellowhammernews.com/politics-2/roby-democrats-blocking-zika-funding , 8/7/2016.

2 – “Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions and received $553.7 million from U.S. taxpayers during the 2014-2015 fiscal year, according to its most recent annual report.”

“Although it saw 200,000 less patients and provided 11 percent fewer services than the previous year, its taxpayer subsidy increased by nearly $25 million.”

“Abortions are down from 2013, when the industry performed 327,653 abortions.”The stability of Planned Parenthood’s abortion count – between 324,000 and 334,000 since 2008 – is remarkable, given that national figures for abortions have been in a nosedive since 2008,” the National Right to Life Committee noted. ‘They have dropped 13 percent in just three years.’”  From “Planned Parenthood reveals its 2014 stats: 323,999 abortions, $553.7 million from US taxpayers, by Ben Johnson, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-performed-323999-abortions-and-received-553.7-million-fr, 1/4/2016.

3 – Here come the objections! “Abortion is legal.” Concentration camps in Nazi Germany were legal, too… So much for blind faith in fallible human court systems.

News Flash, Pro-Choice: We Don’t Own Our Bodies, Including the Unborn

Featured

The longstanding argument rationalizing the killing of the unborn is the presumption that it solely involves the woman’s body and she can do with it whatever she wants.

Two errors here.  First of all, the chromosomes of the baby prove that a second, unique individual is also present.  Therefore, it’s not just about the woman’s body.

Secondly, we are only stewards of our bodies, not the ultimate masters of them.

“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.  It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.  We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.  We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.  It is not ours to dispose of.”1

“The Torah states that the human body was created Bi’tzelem Elokim, in the image of God, and is the property of the Creator.  Man is given custodial rights to his body, and has no more right to harm or destroy his body than the superintendent has to ransack the building he is hired to maintain…”
“By extension a physician may not hasten the death of a patient, not only because of his duty to preserve life, but because he has no right to destroy the property of another, in this case God… Because one’s body is not his property…”2

Consequently, suggesting that we own ourselves is a position which cannot be held by those who hold to Judeo-Christian traditions.

 

1 – Paragraph 2280 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November, 2013.

2 – “Sanctity of the Human Body,” by Daniel Eisenberg, MD.  http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48960576.html

 

 

PBS Documentary on the Unborn: Sneaking in a Requalification of “Human Individuality”

Featured

A recent PBS program about the development of the unborn baby claimed that at eight weeks “we’re not an individual yet.”

It said that the very “first signs of individuality” (which it described as sex identity) are known after eight weeks.

WRONG.  The uniqueness of a person’s individuality, including gender, is established at the moment of conception, NOT eight weeks later.  Science knows this.  And the Catholic Church knows this, Ms. Pelosi.1

It is the height of arrogance to push a lie in an attempt to dehumanize the baby at early development — with the accompanying implication that there’s no need to place any importance about this supposedly unidentifiable life.  A human exists from the moment of conception.  Any attempt to arbitrarily disqualify life as being less than human after that moment follows in the steps of great perpetrators of evil like Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and Planned Parenthood.

 

1https://cartaremi.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/pelosi-blatantly-lied-regarding-churchs-teaching-on-abortion-so-why-not-misrepresent-hamas-too/

 

 

Hillary Ad: “Our children are watching. What example will we set for them?”

 

Yes, Donald Trump could use some polishing in his speech and a few policies.  But while it’s easier to ridicule his superficial faults, we disregard Hillary Clinton’s foundational faults at our peril.

If we disregard her abominable record of:

  • the (preventable) lives lost at Benghazi
  • the transfer of 20% of our nation’s uranium to Russia1
  • loss of trust from our allies when she was Secretary of State,
  • the thousands of at-risk national security emails which will endanger us for an unknown amount of time
  • seeking the support of those who believe freedom of religion and speech can be limited by arbitrarily assigning “hate speech”2,

Then, the question to “With whom would our children better off with as a role model?” can be limited to their parenting abilities.  That is the only case it would be difficult to decide.

But this is certain, the only children who have a chance with Hillary Clinton are those already born. Unborn babies are at severe risk with a woman who thinks a human life can be taken by “choice” and who is amused by Madeleine Albright’s often used “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”3 for women who stray from the Left’s agenda regarding women including support for Hillary Clinton.

Those millions not allowed to live can never see what example she may be setting for them.  But then, she’s not concerned about them, they can never vote against her.

 

1—” –Bill and Hillary Clinton had helped a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra and a small Canadian company obtain a lucrative uranium mining concession from the dictator in Kazakhstan;

–The same Canadian company, renamed Uranium One, bought uranium concessions in the United States;
–The Russian government came calling and sought to buy that Canadian company for a price that would mean big profits for the Canadian investors;
–For the Russians to buy that Canadian company, it would require the approval of the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, because uranium is a strategically important commodity;
–Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval;
–Some of the donations, including those from the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Teler, were kept secret, even though the Clintons promised to disclose all donations;
–Hillary’s State Department approved the deal;
–The Russian government now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets.

2 – “Conservative outlet Townhall notes that several European countries have prosecuted their citizens for merely speaking out publicly against radical Islam and Sharia law, including a pastor in Northern Ireland who gave a sermon critical of the religion.”

“’This resolution is an overt attempt to force Sharia Law compliance worldwide – banning criticism of Islam everywhere – and Hillary Clinton supports it wholeheartedly,’ claims Bare Naked Islam. ‘Despite the countries of the OIC ignoring and perpetuating many human rights abuses and even refusing to sign the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, these nations worked with Hillary Clinton to meet their objective of criminalizing so-called ‘Islamophobia.’” From “Hillary Will Impose ‘Blasphemy’ Laws to Protect Islam: Conservatives,” http://www.therightperspective.org/2016/05/14/president-hillary-will-impose-blasphemy-laws-to-protect-islam-conservatives/, 5/14/2016.

3 – “Albright: ‘special place in hell’ for women who don’t support Clinton,” https://www.the guardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton, 2/6/2016.