"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.

Planned Parenthood shooter not fitting left's stereotype

Robert Lewis Dear registered to vote as 'female,' previously charged as Peeping Tom

So far, Robert Lewis Dear, 57, of Hartsel, Colorado, is disappointing those who tried to stereotype pro-life Christians as terrorists.

No evidence of Dear’s involvement or even opinion on the issue of abortion or religion has surfaced. Pro-life groups denounced the shooting and indicated they had neither interacted with or heard of him.

And before they even knew anything about the alleged perpetrator of a shooting in Boulder, Colorado, the Anti-Christian Troll Kiddies were firing off tweets and social media posts saying that it was another example of a white right-wing Republican Christian going off the deep-end and attacking an abortion clinic. Call it domestic terrorism if you wish, but there has yet to be an iota of evidence that links the shootings to any kind of religious group, let alone any Christian organization.

However, we must be clear about the fact that there can be crazy people of any race, nationality, gender identification, religious belief or political ideology. The domestic terrorists label should not be pinned on any specific group because of the actions of an individual that may fall into the wide scope of profiles, usually somewhere out in the fringes of society. Just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• November 28, 2015 ~ Shooter detained at Colorado Planned Parenthood

• November 28, 2015 ~ Twitter erupts: Shooter 'white Christian terrorist'

*    *    *    *

Planned Parenthood shooter not fitting left's stereotype

Robert Lewis Dear Throughout Friday's six-hour armed standoff at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility that left three dead and nine wounded, social media feasted on the fact the gunman was described as a white man, as WND reported. It didn't take long for that meager piece of information to morph into "Christian," "pro-lifer," and "Republican,"…

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

VIDEO: Dr. Ben Carson's bold and hard hitting comments about Planned Parenthood

Why are so many Planned Parenthood clinics located in black communities? It seems that Margaret Sanger had an issue...

Posted by Johnny2k's America on Saturday, August 15, 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

*     *     *     *

Why is no one talking about this? ~ By Joseph Farah

The dirty, little secret Boehner and the entire Washington establishment don't want Americans to know is that he can – with one vote – enact the most sweeping cuts in federal spending in a century, by simply blocking an increase in the debt limit in the next 30 days.

If Boehner came out tomorrow in support of this position, the entire bloc of 241 House Republicans would stand behind him. They want him to do it. Most of them support this position right now. They want to say no. And this is the one thing Republicans can do this year that will have a dramatic, historic impact on policy – helping to return us right now to limited constitutional government once again.

It's simply the most important vote that will be cast in Congress in the next two years and, perhaps, the most important in the last century.

Joseph Farah explains how Congress and the President can be stopped from more unconstitutional spending. All they have to do is vote no to raising the national debt limit. That seems to make sense. What doesn't make sense is that the mainstream media has blacked out any news about the fact that more and more Republicans in the House of Representative are planning to vote no, and Speaker Boehner still doesn't support that position. This is the biggest opportunity in years for Republicans to "just say no" to more deficits and more debt!

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) should get on board, especially when knowing that is what most Americans would want him to do. And we need to keep up the pressure on Republicans in the House. It's time to remind them that the Tea Party Movement has not faded away, as Senator Harry Reid would like you to believe.

Why is no one talking about this?

JOSEPH FARAH

By Joseph Farah

April 01, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

As a newsman, sometimes I just shake my head and wonder why everyone in the media are missing the biggest story of all.

No, I'm not talking about Barack Obama's apparent ineligibility. Donald Trump has actually managed to get that story on everyone's radar after three years of work by WND.

I'm talking about a political earthquake about to strike Washington.

No one besides WND has been counting heads among House Republicans on stopping what has been assumed to be an inevitable raise in the debt limit in the next few weeks.

Yet, every day, more House Republicans are of a mind to just say no.

This week, WND polled House Republicans again to learn there are 142 solid votes against it and only 20 in favor!

If just 218 of the 241 Republicans ultimately vote no on raising the debt limit past $14.3 trillion, the whole house of cards falls down for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Not only do they have to stop spending, they will be forced to start cutting – and I mean cutting a lot.

Say goodbye to Obamacare. Say goodbye to the Department of Education. Say goodbye to NPR and PBS funding. Say goodbye to Planned Parenthood subsidies. Say goodbye to hundreds of billions of unconstitutional spending. It all has to go. That's how important this one impending vote really is.

I've been doing my best to make this a national issue for the last eight weeks with the "No More Red Ink" campaign. And I want to thank all the people who have participated so far. You are on the verge of making history!

We have sent nearly 1 million red letters to the House Republicans urging them to realize the power they have in their hands and to use it.

We are on the verge of victory. Votes are changing. The trend is toward stopping all further borrowing. Yet, the blackout continues.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Whom is Obama kidding? ~ By Joseph Farah

Yes, Americans want government out of our personal and private family lives. But government is ordained to protect innocent lives from being destroyed. And that's what happens every time an abortion takes place.

Obama doesn't care about the rights of women. He doesn't care about privacy. He doesn't care about "choice." And he doesn't care about or believe in the sanctity of human life.

In this column, Joseph Farah blasts Barack Obama's double-talk about "rights." When Obama says, "Government should not intrude on private family matters," as Joseph explains, it is obviously opposite of what Obama has done. Yes, actions speak much louder than words.

Whom is Obama kidding?

JOSEPH FARAH

By Joseph Farah

January 28, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

On the 38th anniversary of one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in the history of the Constitution and the American republic, Barack Obama expressed his firm support of Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand, saying, "Government should not intrude on private family matters."

Government should not intrude on private family matters?

Whom is this guy kidding?

Can we even count the ways Obama and his administration seek to intrude on private family matters?

• The hallmark legislation of his regime is Obamacare, a completely unconstitutional program that mandates individuals and families purchase government-approved health-care insurance. There is to be no "choice" in the matter. The government intrudes directly in the doctor-patient relationship, determining what is appropriate care and what is not. And, of course, Obama himself has stated unequivocally his preference is for a single-payer system in which government is ultimately responsible for all health-care decisions.

• Obama and his party approve of legislation that will eventually ban "choice" in what kind of light bulbs individuals and families can purchase.

• How about private family matters like personal finance? Obama not only wants to preserve a tax system that requires individuals and families to make all the details of their personal, private financial matters available to the government, he has sought to raise taxes on the most productive individuals because, after all, it's not really their money. It belongs to the government to redistribute as it sees fit.

• Obama seeks to monitor and regulate how much energy individuals and families use in their homes and offices.

• Obama wants individuals and families accountable to government on how they educate their children.

• Obama supports rewriting the laws of nature and nature's God in redefining what constitutes a family.

I could go on and on. This is not a matter of "privacy rights" for Obama. He doesn't believe in privacy rights.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

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)!

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 >

The Dream and the 44th

What Dr. King would really think...

See the video at you tube The Macho Sauce Productions Channel

digg story, submitted by NMmagic

Prez pushes 'responsibility' – except about sex

By Star Parker In these uncertain times, some things remain constant. One is the arrival each Jan. 22 of tens of thousands of pro-life Americans to Washington, D.C., to note the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and to mourn. Forty-eight million American children, given the gift of life, but deprived of seeing the light of day, have been destroyed in the womb since that 22nd of January in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion. So, again this year they came. Change really is not such a new idea in America. They have been coming to Washington seeking change now for 36 years. But apparently, the change they want is not change our new president can believe in. Unlike his predecessor, who annually addressed the shivering crowd, Mr. Obama declined their invitation to speak. However, he issued a brief press statement. But the statement was not about change but about the status quo, celebrating the 1973 decision. [Continue reading]

digg story, submitted by pamam

Watch the ad showing 'unaborted Obama' in womb

A new pro-life advertisement showing a baby in the womb brings Chairman Obama's decision to murder thousands of innocent children close to home. Barry's decision to use our tax dollars to expand abortion mills across the world will curse our great country. This begs the question, would the world be better off if Barry's mother had aborted him?

Read the story by Chelsea Schilling | digg story, submitted by dummycrats