"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of ABORTION?" ~ Video by Fortis Media

Before I could post this video by JJ McNown on Fortis Media, I had to watch it several times. I have to give parents a heads up that this may not be something for children to see. But, this is something that the adults in the room NEED to see, and to help us understand the issues regarding abortion.

I can guarantee that you will see the great courage of this young man in order to make this video. And I strongly believe that it was the colossal amount of faith to make this a public production, knowing that there will be those that will attack JJ's message. Well, here I am, adding myself as a target along with JJ. And I am hoping that many more will join us in spreading this Word. Yes, Life begins at conception.

Here is the video. Again, this may not be suitable for young viewers. Please use your best judgment.

OBGYN slams Democrats for failing to protect baby patients

The Liberal hypocrisy is running rampant these days. While Liberals say that they are fighting so hard for the rights of women, children (except in this case!), minorities, and any other group that they can harvest votes from, why wouldn't they fight for the rights of ALL human beings, even in the stage of being a fetus? Or even after birth? (Isn't that infanticide?)

As Dr. William (Bill) Lile explains in this video, fetuses can be considered as patients. Haven't we been told about patient rights being so important? I am posting this video so that you can check it out for yourself.



What we hope, if we can spread this video out, far and wide, is that people will understand the results of voting for Democrats, and putting them back in power in the U.S. House of Representatives, back in 2018. It is now definitely for sure where the Democrat Party stands on the issue of abortion, even post-birth. We are praying that can be reversed in 2020, along with electing more pro-life Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and state governments across the country.

VIDEO: Sen. Rand Paul calls out DNC Chairwoman on abortion

Late last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) called out DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on abortion.April 17, 2015...

Posted by Johnny2k's America on Thursday, April 23, 2015

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

The battle is joined ~ By Pat Boone

Pat Boone talks about the wars going on. Not just the wars overseas, but the spiritual war that faces America. Pat alludes to the fact that we need to "pick a side," and one of those sides is spiritual.

You don't think Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's stance against "don't ask, don't tell" and other "progressive" personal views have influenced his nominating her? His chief string-puller, Rahm Emanuel, meant it when he said, "Never let a crisis go to waste"; you think they'd let an historic opportunity to put a "progressive" like themselves on the Supreme Court go to waste?

More and more, as dismal and regrettable as it is, it's "us against them." It's traditional Americans, tea partiers, conservatives, hard-working families and most Christians and Jews – all having to actively oppose people that were elected to be our "public servants" and to represent our established dictates and values.

There can be no spiritual Switzerland. No neutrality. You're on one side or the other. You organize and take part and register and vote, determined with millions of us to take our government back. Or we'll all get what we deserve – a socialist, soulless, European-style humanistic, oppressively taxing, Big Brother government.

By Pat Boone

Posted: May 15, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Let's not pussyfoot; let's say it plain, without equivocation: We're at war.

Yes, we're in a global military conflict again, on foreign soil. Once again, we've stepped into battles involving centuries-old animosities, and are sacrificing American lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're trying to defend America's interests while we cope with ancient hatreds and violence and evil intentions that have little to do with us. It's costing us a fortune in dollars and an incalculable cost in lives and resource.

But that's just one battlefield in the war. We're fighting for our survival on many fronts. Including at home, in our streets and neighborhoods.

For most of our existence as a nation, the United States has been the pre-eminent economy in the world. The dollar has been the standard against which all other currencies are valued. And now, in just a few years and a through a couple of administrations, we are clearly being over-obligated and driven toward irreversible bankruptcy.

The Fed is printing paper money like toilet tissue, as fast as the printing presses can go, creating billions of pieces of currency backed by … what? Mainly implicit promises that American taxpayers will find some way to pay off the debts, rebuild our fractured economic structure and magically instill new value to the paper.

And, from the White House and the clique controlling its policies, come more announcements of more spending – billions and billions on new government programs and bailouts of Greece and several other countries, and the inevitable likelihood of ever more taxes for Americans. All without any consent of the taxpayers themselves, from whom the trillions must come.

Friend, our government has no money of its own. It has to print more worthless paper or take it from you and me. We're at war, economically, with our own government!

And on the education front, in our courts and all along our porous borders, other battles are raging that literally will determine the survival of the America you and I inherited. Traditional, long-cherished values and principles are under continual assault from "progressive" teachers unions; and in our cities large and small, gangs and drug dealers run rampant, peopled in many cases by illegal aliens. Too many jurists feel they can create new law, personally favoring special groups or societal trends.

And now our president has nominated a new Supreme Court justice. She hasn't been a judge, and not much is known about her political views – other than her opposition, when she was dean of the Harvard Law School, to military recruitment on campus because she objected to the "don't ask, don't tell" law the military felt was necessary and fair.

Why is this another front in our present domestic war?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Planned Parenthood, Marxism, and Hollywood: How the Left corrupted morality with the Free Love Movement

By John Kubicek

May 16, 2010

I was just about to post a column in this space written by Patrice Lewis called, "Keep your pants on, America!", but I made a decision not to. The reason for that decision was not because I was uncomfortable with the content and subject of the article - or that you might be - but because I thought of a different angle to take. (Well, Patrice, at least you inspired me tonight!)

It was a youtube video that Patrice had linked to in her column that I found to be very disturbing. Again, it wasn't because of the content or subject, but because it reminded me of who Planned Parenthood is. Before I explain further, you need to see this video. (Parents: Please divert the attention of any small children elsewhere before you begin watching this):

Video provided by cbrsw

Now, if you noticed in the video as I did, the characters obviously representing pro-life Christians are depicted as sinister, and they display their protests against abortion and ministry against promiscuity as being evil. Keep in mind that the cartoon in this video was apparently used by a Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Francisco, CA. for "educational" (propaganda) purposes.

Here is a brief snippet about Planned Parenthood from Wikipedia that I found:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization that lobbies the U.S. political system for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care. (Emphasis my own)

Planned Parenthood was initially formed in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. Sanger "was an American birth control activist, advocate of eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League." Her religion? Atheist. But get this: "Sanger was also an avowed socialist, blaming what she saw as the evils of contemporary capitalism for the unsatisfactory conditions of young white working-class women. Her very personal views on this issue are evident in the last pages of "What Every Girl Should Know."

Now, I don't know about you, but when I hear that somebody is a socialist, the chances are, I figure that they are also Marxist. This would most certainly apply to Sanger, I believe. And, here is why:

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the dismantling of capitalism as a way to liberate women. Marxist feminism states that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression. (Emphasis my own)

And if that didn't convince you, what I also found on Wikipedia was this:

Radical feminism, which emerged in the 1970s, also took issue with Marxist feminism. Radical feminist theorists stated that modern society and its constructs (law, religion, politics, art, etc) are the product of males and therefore have a patriarchal character. According to those who subscribe to this view, the best solution for women's oppression would be to treat patriarchy not as a subset of capitalism but as a problem in its own right (see identity politics). Thus eliminating women's oppression means eliminating male domination in all its forms. (Emphasis my own)

So, basically, what the Marxists want people to believe is that women must not be oppressed by men... They must be "empowered." And here is what Patrice Lewis wrote about that in her column referred to above:

"For the first time in human history," says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine, "a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. Critics warned that the Pill would spawn generations of loose, immoral women; what it spawned was generations of empowered women who are better equipped to make rational choices about their lives."


Empowered, that's it. Women acting like rutting cattle are empowered.

Okay, I believe that I've shown the relationship between Planned Parenthood and Marxism, but what does Hollywood have to do with this? Well, let's put it this way. When I was young child, born in the early 1950's, I loved the movies at the theatre. Disney movies were of course my favorite, but anything with John Wayne or movies like "The Longest Day" (war movies) were always a winner in my eyes. They were wholesome. And even "PT-109" about John F. Kennedy's experience in WWII was brilliant, and made him appear to be a hero (in contrast to John Kerry's military experience). That movie was in stark contrast to the promiscuity that ended up being what defined President Kennedy.

And it wasn't just at the movie theaters that things were so wholesome in my early childhood years. The television shows were pretty conservative at that time, too. The Mom and Dad (husband and wife, not just man and woman) slept in separate beds.

And then, in the mid-60's, it happened. Hollywood became "Hollyweird." Movies began to change ever so slightly. It took a while longer for TV to make the leap, but that was because of FCC regulations. Well, anyway, my parents didn't allow me to even go to James Bond (with Sean Connery) movies in my pre-teenage years. I was around 14 or 15 when I finally got to go to one of them, which was "Thunderball." Looking back, I can see why they didn't allow me to go, and I am surprised they ever allowed me to see one. Anyway, James Bond was always able to "get the girl" and though they didn't show any sexual scenes, you pretty much had an idea of what was going to happen or did happen, if you get my drift. And here is the thing about that: James Bond wasn't getting it on with a spouse, but always single, attractive women. Darn that Hollywood, they were starting the movement towards more and more risque flicks in a very covert way... Though body parts weren't displayed, it was the idea that sex with strangers was now okay.

It wasn't long before I had my driver's license, and was able to borrow Dad's car so I could go to the drive-in theaters with my buddies. It all started so innocent, as one of the first movies I went to with my friends was "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." Sure, a little violent, as were the Dirty Harry movies, but Clint Eastwood always got the bad guys. No problem. But it wasn't long before other movies that weren't quite so wholesome became more of the norm at the drive-ins. Oh, wow, those films that showed bare breasts soon became the biggest hits among the teenage boys.

All the while, there was another social change going on. Viet Nam, which inspired The Hippie movement. The flower children. The love child. The psychedelic painted up VW buses. Communes. Free love. Yes, all of this was happening about the same time that Hollywood began to make movies that didn't exactly portray Christian and family values. And do you think that maybe the leftists/progressives/Socialists in Hollywood didn't influence the change? Ya think? After all, don't forget, Hollyweird IS on the "left coast."

And now we see what the progressive social changes have done for America, and the world, for that matter. A high divorce rate. Millions upon millions of abortions. Women with babies and never in wedlock. A lack of morals. Bill Clinton... But I digress.

The Marxists have all but arrived at their ultimate end game. They now have their guy in the Oval Room, a Marxist and his minions running the White House and at least half of Congress, not to mention all of the progressive bureaucrats entrenched in the government system, many of whom are unionized. And don't forget the indoctrination system of the public schools, where there is all of that "sexual education" going on.

But now, here is the question I really wanted to ask while in the process of writing this: Is there any way that we can go back to how it used to be? Yeah, I know, that's a pretty depressing thought, isn't it.

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies,
(especially the one in Las Vegas, on July 15-17)!

Anger at Washington reaches full throttle

WE the PEOPLE are irate, and we're not going let this be easy for Congress to pass health care, in whatever unorthodox way that they will use, to get ObamaCare to the President to sign. Hopefully, the TEA Party patriots will be swarming Washington D.C. and the halls of the Capitol this weekend, and maybe the Congress-critters will get the idea before they transform America into a Socialist state.

Freedomworks reported 130 economists signed a letter to the White House warning that the tax hikes needed to pay for a $1 trillion plan would slow economic growth and eliminate jobs. They warned that the bill would raise taxes by almost $500 billion over 10 years and a significant portion of the tax increases would fall on small business owners. ...

"In addition to constricting economic growth and reducing employment, the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage," the economists wrote. "The new and higher taxes on America's small businesses and workers included in the bill are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, especially now given the fragile state of the economy."

Millions of Americans urged to 'drive stake through the heart' of Obamacare

By Chelsea Schilling

Posted: March 19, 2010 ~ 12:10 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The level of intense anger at Washington is heating up as several high-profile groups are calling on millions of Americans to slam Congress with phone calls, e-mails and faxes demanding that lawmakers vote "no" on the health-care bill.

As WND reported, reforms pushed by President Obama and other Democrats may be approved without ever actually having a direct vote, but could be "deemed" to have been passed and then signed into law by Obama. The process is called the "Slaughter Strategy," named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.

'Deceiving the American people'

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit group that focuses on constitutional litigation, has distributed a letter to every member of the House, showing that the proposed "Slaughter Strategy" is unconstitutional. Its members have slammed Congress with more than 250,000 faxes expressing outrage over the bill.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; … in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."

The Founding Fathers included Article I, Section 7 in the Constitution to keep Congress accountable to the people, Liberty Counsel explained.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter are attempting to deceive the American people by refusing to cast votes on the actual language in the Senate health-care bill," the group said in a statement. "The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care."

Liberty Counsel warned that the Senate health-care bill funds abortion, rations care, limits freedom and will bankrupt America.

"The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "Last night President Obama said he is not concerned with the process. In other words, the end justifies any means. It is unbelievable that the president would disregard the Constitution and the rule of law to push a narrow political agenda that most Americans have rejected."

'Fourth down and goal to go'

Likewise, the American Family Association, or AFA, has joined the fight, sending out action alerts to its entire 2.5 million-member network, urging them to contact their representatives and press them to vote "no" on any and all versions of health-care reform proposals.

AFA also sent targeted action alerts into districts of 46 Democratic congressmen whose positions on this weekend's vote remain uncertain.

Buddy Smith, AFA executive vice president said, "It's fourth down and goal to go, and Democrats are trying desperately to push government takeover of health care across the goal line. The American people need to stand as one against this radical attempt to remake our country and put government bureaucrats between their families and their health-care providers."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Trading liberty for tyranny ~ By Alan Keyes

Commentary from WorldNetDaily.  As always, Alan Keyes writes to stimulate your thought process with careful reading. I'll start this one with the good news:

As I argued many months ago in one of the little thoughts posted on my blog, the Obama faction's spending schemes have mainly been a stimulus toward tyranny. They have had one unintended and potentially beneficial result, however. They have stimulated deep outrage and resistance from Americans unwilling to cap the prospects of their future by giving liberty in trade for elite domination. Such people can hardly wait until November rolls around. Then they will have their say.

By Alan Keyes

Posted: February 19, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It turns out, of course, that the much vaunted so-called "stimulus" legislation that was supposed to create jobs as it pulled the economy out of the "great recession" isn't working. Evan Bayh, the now-retiring senator from Indiana, has famously admitted as much, saying, "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months."

Surprise, surprise! Government spending doesn't create jobs, at least not without a war on. This fact has to be especially hard for a Democrat to admit. The official mythology of the Democratic Party rests on the tacit assumption that New Deal government jobs and public works programs pulled America out of the Great Depression. This assumption goes unquestioned among rank-and-file Democrats despite overwhelming evidence that the Depression ended only after the United States geared up for round two of the 20th century's Great World War. Fortunately, absent some profiteering motive, sane people would agree that that particular remedy comes at too high a price. Robert Higgs makes a good point when he quotes Ludwig von Mises ("War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.") in the course of substantiating the point that war creates a demand for more workers by literally shipping large numbers of able-bodied individuals off to the slaughterhouse. Just ask G.I. Joe how Rosie the Riveter came by her first job.

Unfortunately, like the Melanesian people who built their hopes on a classically fallacious post hoc, propter hoc observation, Democratic and RINO Republican voters have been suckered by their political exploiters into building false hopes for prosperity on the observation of the delivery of tax dollars to the party bosses and their cronies. (There are surely some folks in ACORN and other favored elements of the Obama cult who will testify to the return of prosperity in the wake of the stimulus legislation.) Meanwhile, the Obama faction's Democrats seem willing to imitate only one element of the factual basis for the end of the Great Depression. Their fanatical promotion of abortion (and other practices inimical to human procreation) has proliferated slaughterhouses throughout the land, culling innocent lives that would otherwise have contributed to an expanding work force. The perennial and intensifying financial crisis of the Social Security system is one result.

READ FULL STORY >

Governor Palin's January 28, 2010 interview with Greta Van Susteren

Found via PalinTV.com

January 30, 2010 - Governor Palin on Greta Part 1/2 (Jan 28 2010) Part 1 of Governor Palin's January 28 2010 interview with Greta Van Susteren. In this segment the Governor discusses President Obamas State of the Union Address. Topics include Jobs creation, Unemployment, Health Care

Video provided by AdoringPalin

January 30, 2010 - Governor Palin on Greta Part 2/2 (Jan 28 2010) Part 2 of Governor Palin's interview with Greta Van Susteren. In this segment the Governor talks about the controversy over CBS accepting the The ridiculous situation NOW is getting themselves into with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they'll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances.

Video provided by AdoringPalin

What's so provocative about the Tebow ad? ~ By Star Parker

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

"So what's bothering these women? "Two things. "First, the enabler of human brutality is de-humanization. Pro-abortionists know that our existing legalized-abortion regime can only continue as long as we keep the human face off abortion."

By Star Parker Posted: January 30, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Why are pro-abortion groups so up in arms about the Tim Tebow ad that CBS will run during the Superbowl? According to the press release of Focus on the Family, the Christian organization sponsoring the ad, University of Florida football star and Heisman Trophy winner Tebow and his mother, Pam, "will share a personal story centered on the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." The Tebows are devout Christians, and Pam gave birth to Tim despite advice from her doctor to abort because of illness during her pregnancy. Since the script is not publicly available, all we know is the family story and knowledge that the ad passed muster with CBS. We spoke with Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger and asked if the ad in any way speaks to the politics of abortion. The answer was an emphatic "no." According to Schneeberger, it's "not selling, it is celebrating" and is about the "love between a mother and a son." So what's provoking the letter writing campaign of feminist groups to CBS to pull the ad? Why would the National Organization for Women call this "offensive to women" or would the Women's Media Center call it "divisive?" Sure, there's no question that Focus on the Family is pro-life and opposes legal and readily accessible abortion. But CBS wouldn't be running this ad if its focus was political advocacy. READ FULL STORY >

RELATED VIDEO: January 29, 2010 - I'd be pro-choice if the choice was always pro-life

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

Congratulations, Sen. Brown ~ By Ellis Washington

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ellis Washington Posted: January 23, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Editor's note: Ellis Washington's new radio program, "The Washington Report," airs Thursdays at 11 a.m. Eastern on 1620 AM in Atlanta, Ga. It can be heard online at the Radio Sandy Springs website.

It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samuel Adams

I love those stirring words of Samuel Adams (1722-1803), one of my favorite historical figures, also known as "The Father of the American Revolution." Would to God we had 535 Samuel Adamses in Congress today. During pivotal times of our history, Massachusetts has been at the epicenter of America's republic. We all remember the two great tea parties that began a tsunami of political reform starting in Massachusetts and quickly spread throughout the country:

• May 10, 1773 – The Boston Tea Party lit the fuse of the American Revolution, which eventually destroyed the shackles of British tyranny, monarchy and confiscatory taxation policies from the colonies;

• April 15, 2009 – The first Tax Day Tea Party was started on Tax Day in Boston, Mass., leading to a steady decline of President Barack Obama in the polls and increasing opposition to his radical Marxist agenda to "remake America," including his socialist health-care program currently stalled in Congress.

The first act of defiance by our forefathers 237 years ago established the republic; the last act will perhaps save our republic from the fascist policies of President Obama and the Democrats. With Tuesday's victory of Scott Brown over Massachusetts Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley, seismic shock waves were sent across the world. The sword of Damocles now hangs ominously over the head Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid's tenuous 60 votes required to pass their Marxist health-care bill in the Senate. READ FULL STORY >

Save lives in Haiti – end lives in America? ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: January 18, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced on Friday all that the present administration was doing to save lives in Haiti, Gibbs reported that President Obama was meeting at the very moment with both the House and Senate Democrats to resolve how they could provide federal funds via Obamacare to terminate more American lives in the womb. What a stark and tragic contradiction in agendas, aids, ethics and value of human life. Is it not incongruous to anyone else that our president, who proposes to be an advocate for all minorities, isn't one for the most disadvantaged to survival? What type of health care is there for the least among (and within) us? Abortion has been called the most hotly contested and challenging aspect of Obamacare, and, if there is no compromise soon between the House and Senate, the battle could possibly lead to the death of the health-care bills. One thing is certain, and Obama knows it: If the Democrats are to pass their version of health care, with any overt or covert pro-abortion verbiage in it, they need their super-majority of 60 votes intact to block any possible filibuster. That is why it is certainly no coincidence that Press Secretary Gibbs also announced Friday that the president had decided to go to Massachusetts to campaign for 60th-vote Senate candidate Martha Coakley "because she asked." As we sit on the eve of another Sanctity of Life Sunday (Jan. 24), I'm also struck by the sheer contrasts of President Obama's and our founders' views of human life in the womb. The truth is, when our country elected Obama as president, we placed a man in the highest office in the land that has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies who survived an abortion attempt and were born alive. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" due to an unwanted pregnancy. In just his first year in office, President Obama has led and enacted more pro-choice or abortion legislation than all former presidents combined. Restrictions for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have been lifted. Obama overturned the "Mexico City Policy," now allowing federal taxpayer funds to support international family planning groups that provide abortions. Obama gave $50 million to UNFPA, the U.N. population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and having close associations with Chinese population-control officials. And Obama recently signed into law another omnibus bill and its provision that overturns the 1988 Dornan Amendment, which prevented taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in Washington, D.C. Tragically, the bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family-planning funding (an increase of $103 million over 2009) and contains funding for Planned Parenthood and for the United Nations Population Fund, both of which have pro-abortion agendas. Still on the horizon, but fast approaching, is the fulfillment of Obama's campaign promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, which is a sweeping bill that will once and for all abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on all federal funding of abortion. If you think Obama's pro-abortion mission is over, consider the brand new special report, "Promise Audit: Tracking Obama's Progress on Campaign Promises," in which the National Journal examined Obama's abortion track record and gave him a 33 percent completion rating of his campaign promises regarding abortion. Can you imagine if all the pro-abortion initiatives Obama has accomplished in his first year are just one-third of all he will do before the end of his term? READ FULL STORY >

Less choice, more murder ~ By Star Parker

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Star Parker Posted: January 16, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 Again, this Jan. 22, hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans will converge on Washington for the March for Life. The March has taken place every year since 1974 to protest the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on Jan. 22, 1973, which legalized abortion. Good news for pro-lifers is that 2009 showed evidence of a turnaround in national sentiment toward tolerance for abortion. Two Gallup polls, one done in May and one done in August, showed higher percentages identifying as "pro-life" than "pro-choice." The opposite had been true in all previous years since Gallup first started doing this survey in 1995. But the bad news is that another year has gone by as our nation allowed more than a million innocent unborn children to be brutally murdered – some 50 million since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. It somehow doesn't compute that we are horrified watching the bloodbath that has occurred in Haiti – the result of the cold, inscrutable hand of nature – yet we are willing to tolerate the ongoing holocaust taking place in our own country, a holocaust perpetrated by conscious human choice. When I wrote about this last year, President Obama was only a few days past his inauguration. He declined the invitation of March for Lifers to address them, an invitation his predecessor accepted each year. He only issued a statement noting the Roe v. Wade decision, saying: "… we are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters." So, let's not for a minute lose perspective that this president sees abortion as health care. READ FULL STORY >

Eliminate those resource-sucking brats! ~ By Patrice Lewis

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Patrice Lewis Posted: January 02, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 For some time now, I've been bookmarking "green" articles on overpopulation and how we need to reduce the number of children we bear in order to save the planet. Recently another opinion piece came to light that so revolted me that I knew it was time to address the issue. Diane Francis, editor-at-large of the National Post, wrote a column for the Financial Post in which she endorsed implementing China's one-child policy worldwide as a means of saving the planet. "The fix [for overpopulation] is simple," writes Ms. Francis. "It's dramatic. And yet the world's leaders don't even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies. None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. … China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. … The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures." I see. Are you volunteering, Ms. Francis? Because here's the clincher: You have two kids. For those who like the idea of a one-child policy, you'll be pleased to know that "China's population-control measures have resulted in 400 million fewer births, translating into 18 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year." This is reported by Zhao Baige, vice minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China. I'm sure he's right. But it's how those 400 million "fewer births" happened that things get ugly. Compliance with the one-child policy isn't always voluntary. Therefore many Chinese people must be coerced into limiting themselves to one child … and I mean "coerced" in the worse sense of the word. Is this really what Ms. Francis wants? READ FULL STORY >

New promise: Lawsuits to challenge 'Obamacare'

From WorldNetDaily

Social program called 'power grab that rewrites American history' By Bob Unruh Posted: December 25, 2009 ~ 12:10 am Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily Obamacare, as critics have dubbed the president's plan to socialize health care, will be flooded with lawsuits if it ever becomes law, according to an organization that works to protect rights and liberties of Americans. In an alert issued this week, Liberty Counsel, run by President Mathew Staver, promised his organization "is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide the coverage standards that are required in the bill." "In addition," he warned, "the bill still requires citizens to pay a fine if they don't maintain insurance for themselves and their families." The promise came just before the U.S. Senate approved its version of the health-care reform plan. The House has adopted a version that must be reconciled with the Senate's before moving to the president's desk. Among major sticking points are a government-run "option," as well as abortion funding, which has drawn strong opposition from the public. But like demanding that everyone drive a blue car or watch a specific television network, the concept of mandatory health insurance set by the government just doesn't appear in the U.S. Constitution, Staver argues. He told WND that if the plan gets to the point of being signed into law by Obama, "We will sue." He said Liberty University will be a plaintiff along with other groups or individuals. "The thrust is that Congress lacks the power to force health care coverage on individuals," he said. "It lacks the power to fine employers that do not have or provide health care coverage according to the mandates of the bill." He said Liberty University, like many businesses, has a brief waiting period for new employees before its health insurance coverage applies. Because of that, the educational institution would face a fine of $600 per employee under the new law. Also, the health care plan pending in Congress "exempts certain religions but not others," Staver noted. Congress, he said, cannot simply regulate anything it wants. Instead, Congress' authority has limits, such as taxing and spending and commerce. "They're going to have a hard time proving that this affects interstate commerce, individuals who don't want insurance coverage," Staver said. The problem, however, is bigger than just the health-care plan. "It is scary. This Congress will do just whatever it wants to do, notwithstanding the law or the will of the American people," he said. For that reason, he said, the imposition of such health-care provisions must be challenged. "It's a political power grab that rewrites American history," he said. READ FULL STORY >

Tyranny's friend 'necessity' ~ By Phil Elmore

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Phil Elmore Posted: December 17, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 "Necessity," said William Pitt, "is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." There is no call for control of your life by government, no demand for you to relinquish your civil rights made from behind the barrels of guns held by jackbooted government thugs, that does not begin as an appeal to the necessary. It is through pleas to supposed necessity that liberals, "progressives" and leftists of every stripe advance their desires to manage every facet of your waking life. It is through arguments built on alleged necessity that statists justify and rationalize every attempt to force you to toe their ideological line from the cradle to the grave. To those on the left side of the political aisle, modern technology is a gold mine of these mandates of the necessary. When they are not touting the benefits of invasive technologies that enable them to monitor, manipulate and mind the citizens of an increasingly less free nation – the proliferation of surveillance cameras, advanced security scanning and screening devices, RFID tags in our identifications, passports and credit cards, and government oversight of social networking sites to identify and root out anti-government heresy are just a few such examples – they are telling us that technology is evil. The engines of industry, they tell us, must be shut down, lest the pollution generated by our prosperity chokes us all to death on its fumes. Your neighbors should be pawing through your trash, prepared to report you for violating recycling guidelines. The car you drive is too big and comfortable; you should be forced, by government restrictions and punitive taxes, to buy a smaller one. Why, you shouldn't even be allowed to send a text message because, frankly, text messaging is popular, and any technology that is popular must be bad. The excuse used in each and every case of government meddling – in industry, in business and especially in your individual life as an American citizen, most if not all of these dictates far overreaching the powers granted the government by the Constitution – is necessity. Why, if we do not pass this law, people might be hurt or killed. If we don't "reign in" this dangerous technology, the environment will be damaged. If we don't stop this dangerous, popular trend by banning this or regulating that, dire portents will become bad omens that will evolve into doom and destruction, or something. Hurry, do something! Do it now! And by "something," we mean pass a law that takes away your natural rights as a free citizen of a sovereign nation. READ FULL STORY >

What if Mother Mary had Obamacare? ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: December 14, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Washington is up to its old political shell game again, but this time – to steal an often used word from the mouth of our president – in an unprecedented way. While the mainstream media are focused on President Obama's two trips to Europe (last week to Oslo and this week to Copenhagen), the Democrats in Congress slipped major pro-abortion legislation under the radar. First, last Monday the Senate tabled the amendment introduced by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would ban federal funds from providing for abortion in its health-care reform bill. Then on Thursday the House of Representatives rushed the clandestine approval of an overinflated $1 trillion omnibus bill that includes 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion and an underhanded provision that overturns a long-standing budget ban in the District of Columbia (whose budget is overseen by Congress) for federally funding abortions. After the Democrat-controlled Senate cleared a procedural vote on Saturday needed to end a Republican filibuster, on yet another near-secret Sunday afternoon session, the Senate passed the omnibus bill, and its provision that also overturns the 1988 Dornan Amendment, which prevented use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in Washington, D.C. Tragically, the bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family planning funding (an increase of $103 million over 2009) and contains funding for Planned Parenthood and for the United Nations Population Fund, both of which have pro-abortion agendas. According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, what the congressional Democratic leaders did was to take "a single appropriations bill that's just supposed to cover a couple of departments and just stapl[ed] a bunch of other bills to it that were never even taken up by the Senate." Johnson further explained, "So, they ram[med] these through under a fast-track procedure where the Senate would never have even debated nor had a chance to vote on these measures." In short, while President Obama was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the Democrats in Congress drove a sword through the womb of the unborn. READ FULL STORY >

GOP's Boehner: Pelosi plans 'monthly abortion premium'

From WorldNetDaily

House minority leader says 2,032-page health-care takeover specifies payments Posted: November 05, 2009 ~ 12:01 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, is warning voters across America that the "government takeover of health care" pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., contains a "monthly abortion premium" for participants of a proposed government insurance company. The issue of abortion funding in the Democratic plan has been contentious, with many moderate Democrats who recognize their constituents oppose mandating taxpayer funding for abortion concerned about the underlying support for the industry in the proposals. Members of the GOP largely have opposed the health-care plan for a multitude of reasons, including abortion funding. Today on his House blog, Boehner said the plan sets up funding for abortion-industry leaders that could include Planned Parenthood. "Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions," Boehner wrote. "Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it." But, he said, line 17 of page 110 of Pelosi's 2,032-page plan specifically states, "Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Nancy Pelosi's Office sit-in and demonstration

Video and description provided by RandallTerry

Public opposition to Pelosi's Healthcare Bill leads to demonstration in her office building after rally at the Capitol.

Holdren: Sterilize welfare recipients

From WorldNetDaily

Obama boss suggested ways to save planet, said fetus not a person Posted: September 23, 2009 ~ 7:56 pm Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi © 2009 WorldNetDaily Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that compulsory, government-mandated "green abortions" would be a constitutionally acceptable way to control population growth and prevent ecological disasters, including global warming, because a fetus was most likely not a "person" under the terms of the 14th Amendment. Holdren further suggested government-mandated population control measures might be inflicted in the United States against welfare recipients, writing on page 840: "There has been considerable talk in some quarters at times of forcibly suppressing reproduction among welfare recipients (perhaps by requiring the use of contraceptives or even by involuntary sterilizations). This may sadly foreshadow what our society might do if the human predicament gets out of hand." (Parenthesis in original text.) As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Ann. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change." Writing on page 839 of the textbook, the authors state: "The common law and drafters of the U.S. Constitution did not consider a fetus a human being. Feticide was not murder in common law because the fetus was not considered to be a human being, and for purposes of the Constitution a fetus is probably not a 'person' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus under the constitution, abortion is apparently not unlawful, although infanticide obviously is." [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Those 'phony claims' of Obama detractors ~ By Patrick J. Buchanan

From WorldNetDaily

By Patrick J. Buchanan Posted: September 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 We should have "an honest debate" on health care, said Barack Obama in his Aug. 22 radio address, "not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions." Among the "phony claims" made against the House bill, says the president, are that it provides funding for abortions, guarantees coverage for illegal aliens, contains "death panels" and represents a federal takeover of the health-care system. Is Obama right? Are critics misleading and frightening folks with falsehoods about Obamacare? Well, let us inspect each of those "phony claims." Does the House bill fund abortions? No. However, while the House Energy and Commerce Committee at first voted to exclude abortions from "essential" services, to the howls of NOW, Chairman Henry Waxman conducted a second vote, to drop the anti-abortion amendment. That vote carried. In short, funding for abortions remains an open question. And whether Obama agrees to drop it to assure passage, he supports the Freedom of Choice Act that would, opponents insist, overturn every state and federal restriction, including the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding. Obama has already used his authority to lift the Reagan administration prohibition against using foreign aid funds to procure abortions abroad. Obama is a pro-abortion absolutist. And if abortion-funding is not in the final health care bill, does anyone doubt that Democrats will move swiftly to incorporate it in future legislation? [CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE COLUMN]