Tag Archives: Planned Parenthood

Colorado Cop Killed In PP Shooting Shows Everyone What Pro-Life REALLY Means

swasseyOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

By now most people know that psychopath Robert Lewis Dear shot up a strip mall “in the vicinity” of a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic. Thus far, authorities are still not sure why. What is clear is that based on the location, the shooter not only killed three people, but in the process also handed the #ShoutYourAbortion crowd a textbook tragedy to exploit

That’s why, in the aftermath of the shooting, to deflect attention from a scandal involving the abortion provider getting caught peddling baby body parts for profit, Planned Parenthood opportunists and apologists are choosing to focus on how inflammatory rhetoric is causing the pro-choice movement to be victimized.

How are they doing it?

Allegedly, after being taken into custody, Mr. Dear mumbled something about “no more baby parts.” A deranged man with an automatic weapon, uttering those four words is all the left needed to confirm that the hermit’s actions represent the secret intent of anyone that opposes abortion.

What the media has not disclosed yet is whether Robert Lewis Dear was also talking to his dead grandmother, or receiving a top-secret transmission from outer space.

Granted, Dear did have suspect twig crucifix nailed to the side of his canary yellow cabin, but according to his neighbors the recluse never mentioned religion, nor did he ever voice opposition to abortion. Yet despite having nothing to base the allegation on, some on the left have elevated this mentally ill recluse to the position of pro-life poster boy.

And even though no one knows, with any degree of certainty, what Robert Lewis Dear really believes, what we do know is that one of the three people who died in the shooting, pastor/cop Officer Garrett Swasey, was a proud pro-life Christian.

And to prove it, despite probably knowing about the videotapes that exposed Planned Parenthood dismembering of human babies, Officer Swasey still chose to rescue more pro-choice women from the jaws of death then Dear managed to blow away.

What liberals conveniently forget to mention is that, despite Dear’s two other victims being there to “support friends”, the patients Garrett Swasey saved were at the clinic to submit their unborn babies to a violent procedure that contradicted his core religious beliefs.

With that in mind, instead of speculating about what motivated Robert Lewis Dear, why not change the subject to Swasey who, by not hesitating to put the safety of pro-choice women above his own life, demonstrated the entirety of what it truly means to be pro-life?

While we wait for that to happen, the #ShoutYourAbortion crew will continue to exploit any thing they think can distract from the carnage that takes place daily in Planned Parenthood abortion clinics all across America.

But, try as might, what the left will never be able to undercut is the power of the message an unselfish pro-life Christian man named Garrett Swasey relayed to Pro-choice America when he freely laid down his own life so that women planning to abort unborn babies — whose body parts might even be sold to the highest bidder — could live.

In the end, it wasn’t a twisted murderer named Robert Lewis Dear that demonstrated what it means to be pro-life; it was the impartial, mindful sacrifice, on behalf of the sanctity of life, exhibited by Garrett Swasey.

The Liberal Nurturing of Gun Violence

obamawithgunOriginally posted at American Thinker

Of late it seems as though liberals on the whole are incapable of understanding how one thing can affect another.  In this case, it’s the holy grail of abortion’s effect on gun violence.

Whether they recognize it or not, liberal ideology has contributed toward America devolving into a macabre death culture, where rooted in the corporate psyche is the idea that expediency trumps the sanctity of God-given life.  The abortion/gun violence dichotomy arises when pro-choice advocates like Barack Obama seek to limit some weapons made of steel but heartily support an industry that also uses steel to destroy innocent life.

In other words, America is again embroiled in a crisis the left has spent decades nurturing but is now seeking to remedy.

Liberals are adamant about funding the slaughter of 4,000 human beings a day.  Meanwhile, those who seek to advance abortion simultaneously insist that guns, which are inanimate objects, are responsible for killing people whom, if they were still in the womb, the left would be more than happy to exterminate.

Clearly this particular cause-and-effect principle emanates from a lopsided philosophy that discriminates with regard to deadly weapons.  If deadly force is administered via a firearm, liberals are irate.  However, if the weapon is a cannula, forceps, or a dilator, liberals are ecstatic.

Meanwhile, society as a whole has been successfully desensitized to casually accept unnatural death.  Secular humanism views euthanasia as benevolent; barely notices when global jihadis behead, burn, and drown Christians; and for the most part looks the other way as the unborn are slaughtered.

Post-birth abortion is now dismissed with a shrug; the sale of baby organs is justified as benefiting the common good; and right-to-death activists like the late Brittany Maynard, who offed herself with a handful of pills, are viewed as somehow heroic.

Sadly, that line of reasoning is likely the driving force behind the sort of violence that causes a shooter like Chris Harper-Mercer to believe that, for whatever reason, he has the right to stroll onto a college campus and blow ten people away.

Moreover, what liberals fail or refuse to recognize is that actively excising God from the public consciousness, systematically equating murder with women’s health, and spending almost half a century pressing for the right to kill eradicate any credibility they may have had concerning the issue of saving lives.

A blurred line between acceptable and unacceptable murder has developed, yet the ones most responsible for the distortion refuse to acknowledge personal culpability.  Instead, the same people directly responsible for cultivating the chaos have appointed themselves the engineers of legislation that does nothing to resolve the moral abyss.

Take for example Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama approves of sanitized violence in an abortion clinic but decries gun violence when the blood is shed on a college campus.

In the president’s mixed-up world of acceptable death categories, biohazard bags are tolerable, but body bags are not; tenaculums are fine as government-funded implements of death, but Thompson submachine guns should be banned.

Pro-death politicians preaching to us about the horrors of gun violence is sort of like listening to a woman with a forehead full of Botox and filler-enhanced lips pontificate about the virtues of aging gracefully.  In fact, when it comes to the issue of gun control, President Obama has mutated into America’s very own Maggie DeBlock.

Maggie is the portly Belgian minister of social affairs and health, who weighs in at close to 300 pounds.  Miss Maggie is to Godiva Chocolate what Obama is to the abortion industry.  The difference between the two public figures is that DeBlock preaches healthy living with chocolate-stained fingers while Obama, with bloodstained hands, denounces murder – but not all murder.

This brand of hypocrisy undoubtedly aids those who feel justified in disposing of other human beings based on a regrettable personal choice or some other distorted reasoning.

Therefore, whether Obama realizes it or not, the blame for mass shootings should be placed not on the Second Amendment or on those who believe that abortion outside the womb is an acceptable choice, but at the feet of those like himself, who condemn ambushing a roomful of people with a gun but openly approve of ambushing a baby in the womb.

It’s secular progressives who have spent 40-plus years dumbing down the public’s definition of murder.  Therefore, what right do abortion advocates have to get indignant when a deranged person with a gun executes a roomful of people?  Especially since, across town, a taxpayer-funded nutcase in colorful scrubs is concurrently using a liberal-approved weapon to ensure that his or her victim is just as dead as the sheet-covered corpses lined up on the gymnasium floor?

RUSSIA HAS ITS CANNIBALS–We Have Ours: Exposing Planned Parenthood

cannibal-300x180Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Maybe it’s the affinity for herring that does it, but Russia has turned out a few nasty Jeffrey Dahmer-type killers over the years. First there was the impotent sex freak/supply clerk Andrei Chikatilo, father of Yuri and Lyudmila, who raped, murdered, and cannibalized 53 people.

After he endured a childhood of poverty and Stalinist-era forced famines, and after starving neighbors ate a brother who went missing, Chikatilo developed into a cannibalistic serial killer.

It was between the years of 1978 and 1990 that Andrei got away with dining on tongues and sex organs. Finally Chikatilo was captured, and in 1994 was executed with one bullet to the back of the head.

Now, 25 years later, Russia has another cannibal named Tamara Samsonova. Tamara, dubbed the “Granny Ripper,” is a 68-year-old retiree who, when not playing cards and shuffleboard and whatever else pensioners do, killed, dismembered, cut out the lungs, and dined on what police say could be up to 14 victims – and then chronicled it in a diary.

Tamara’s last target was her friend/tenant Valentina Ulanova, aged 79. In response to a dispute over a dirty teacup, the cannibal drugged Valentina with sleeping pills and cut her up while she was still alive. Then, after decapitating the woman with a hacksaw and possibly eating parts of her body, she stuffed what was left of Valentina into a black plastic bag and dumped it near a pond, where it was later found.

After her arrest, Samsonova, much like Chikatilo, confessed what she did to Valentina: “I killed my tenant Volodya, cut her to pieces in the bathroom with a knife, put the pieces of her body in plastic bags and threw them away.”

Police suspect that the former hotel worker also had her husband, who disappeared 10 years ago, for lunch; carved up a boarder in her apartment; and murdered a businessman whose headless, limbless torso was found 12 years ago on the street where Tamara lived.

At her arraignment, Samsonova told Judge Roman Chebotaryov, “I was getting ready for this court action for dozens of years. It was all done deliberately. With this last murder I closed the chapter. I am guilty and I deserve a punishment.”

Cannibalization is defined as the act of an animal eating one of its own kind, or the act of “us[ing] (a machine) as a source of spare parts for another, similar machine.”

In America there is currently a Planned Parenthood controversy that is similar to what cannibals Samsonova and Chikatilo did in Russia. Although the motives were different, the outcome is the same.

Planned Parenthood is a government-funded organization where human animals consume their own kind and then use the excuse that spare parts are needed to benefit the medical needs of human machines.

Civilized people shriek in horror at the thought of luring, killing, and dismembering an innocent animal, let alone doing the same thing to another person. Yet isn’t that what abortion provider/black-market baby-organ seller Planned Parenthood does all day, everyday? It lures in weak, vulnerable women who want to dispose of children for reasons just as trivial as being upset over a dirty teacup.

Planned Parenthood provides a service to females whose stomachs growl with personal yearning and who satiate that hunger by feeding babies to an organization whose gratification is obtained by profiting from the sale of human flesh.

Samsonova and Chikatilo may have eaten humans outright. But Planned Parenthood clinicians Nucotola, Gatter, Ginde, and Gold Coast Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Melissa Farrell run a close second to the Russian carnivores when it comes to feeding on death.

Samsonova and Chikatilo are just less refined.

Let’s face it – only a certifiable people-eater could stuff her gullet while discussing “less crunchy” abortion methods, the sale of baby livers, fetal eyeballs, neural tissue, and how to ensure the delivery of “intact fetal cadavers”.

As for Samsonova, after setting her sights on a mark, in some cases before carving them up for dinner, she drugged her victims. On the other hand, merciless Planned Parenthood doctors choose not to administer pain relief to those marked for death. Thus, before dying, many of the babies being massacred experience an excruciating level of intense suffering.

After dismembering her kill, Tamara separated body parts into edible piles and trash piles. Likewise, before dumping the unsellable tissue into biohazard bags and shipping them to an incinerator, by separating the tiny limbs and tattered organs of the dead, Planned Parenthood does the same thing.

The difference is that unlike a Russian cannibal who detaches heads from torsos in the woods and gouges out lungs in the bathtub, the nurses at Planned Parenthood have “fun” dissecting baby remains on a plate over a lighted table.

As for the consumption aspect, Tamara and Andrei both wolfed down the choicest parts, and so too does Planned Parenthood.

After picking through bone fragments and miniscule sex organs, fingers, and toes, rather than literally eat “another boy,” the legalized butcher of babies sells prime selections to the highest-paying consumer for money that is later used to buy foodstuffs to fill the bellies of famished executioners.

The Russian duo were probably cannibals to satisfy either a pathological sexual perversion, as in Chikatilo’s case, or because of a psychotic mental illness, as in Samsonova’s. But regardless of the excuse, how psychotic does an entire organization have to be to justify slaughtering infants and peddling their organs like spare car parts?

In the end, it remains to be seen whether Tamara Samsonova will suffer the same bullet-to-the-back-of-the-head fate as Andrei Chikatilo. In the meantime, at least when they were finally caught, the Russian cannibals confessed to their crimes, which is more than can be said for the pusillanimous predators at Planned Parenthood.

Whatever ends up happening to the woman who prefers human lungs to Borscht, one thing is certain: Tamara Samsonova has inadvertently provided the American public with a gruesome illustration of the true nature of Planned Parenthood.

Born at 23 weeks, this micropreemie is sharing the truth about abortion

photo_1_a69b7de0fda817371d2338773b64d379.today-inline-large2x-672x372Originally posted at LiveAction News

The story of former “micropreemie” Trevor Frolek couldn’t come at a more awkward time for Planned Parenthood. Currently, the largest abortion provider in the country is scrambling to defend killing babies up to 20 weeks gestation and beyond, and selling their body parts for profit.

America has witnessed a Planned Parenthood abortionist explaining during an investigation conducted by the Center for Medical Progress that intact “specimens” can be provided to biotech companies from babies who refuse to die during an abortion.

Then, as people argue that tiny fetuses cannot survive, along comes a “little miracle” named Trevor.

Contrary to the insistence of the pro-abortion lobby, studies show that depending on medical care, at 22 weeks — the age that Planned Parenthood is killing viable babies— preemies can survive with care.

So Trevor Frolek came into the world at 23 weeks. At the time of his birth, he weighed in at 1 pound, 6 ounces, and like many of the babies born alive in “botched” abortions would do if given the chance, Trevor fought to stay alive. And stay alive he did.

Trevor survived, and after spending the first year of his life in Fargo, North Dakota’s Essentia Health neonatal intensive care unit, weighing a healthy 20 pounds, he went home with his mother, Becky, and dad, Bo.

Trevor’s mother Becky is grateful, and recognizes that “It’s just a complete miracle. The doctors and nurses have worked so hard to get him to this point. It’s beyond amazing.”

Essentia NICU’s clinical supervisor, Vicki Holtan, says of Trevor, “You look at him and it’s like, ‘You are a little miracle. You are supposed to be here.’”

The sad truth is that just like Trevor, every baby Planned Parenthood aborts, carves up, and markets for money is also a “little miracle” and was also “supposed to be here.”

photo_1_ecfe54162b32c10cc36258e5da6f6e44.today-inline-large

After he was born, as the medical team ferried Trevor to the NICU, his father, Bo, said: “Save the baby if you can… do whatever you can.’”

When Trevor’s mother saw her son for the first time, what she took in with her eyes is what those opposed to pre-abortion sonograms hope to avoid – a mother beholding the miracle of creation.

Hesitant at first to look because she was unsure of what she would see, Becky must have believed the customary “clump of cells” lie, because she was stunned. “It was scary,” she said, “but he was more human-like than I expected. All his fingers, all his toes, everything was there, just so tiny. His skin was so transparent and fragile.”

wedding_ring_photo_a9d89fba9641f26df35efbd057d841ad.today-inline-large2x

Trevor’s foot and Dad Bo’s wedding ring at birth.

Becky said, the question as to whether her baby would live, “(It would be) minute by minute, hour by hour for quite a while,” but Trevor did survive.

Trevor Frolek started out life the weight of a mango, yet this little boy’s story of life comes at a moment in time when Americans, horrified by Planned Parenthood revelations, need to see an actual baby who survived at 23 weeks.

SAVE LIONS & KILL BABIES: The Moral Dilemma of a Dead Lion

Screen-Shot-2015-07-30-at-9.31.45-AM-300x180Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Call me hardhearted, but unlike late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, who got choked-up talking about how Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer killed Zimbabwe’s beloved 13-year-old Cecil the Lion, when I weep, it’s for the 60 million human beings that have legally perished in a natural habitat called the mother’s womb.

Am I missing something here? Because in the moral outrage department something is sorely amiss.

Not that hunting lions is my thing, but here I was just getting used to the morally relativistic idea that there is no right and wrong and then, out of the blue, I find out that although killing babies is an acceptable choice, killing lions is not.

I thought it was the left’s modus operandi to measure every action against a personal moral compass. If it’s right to you, then it’s right – right? Wrong! Thanks to Cecil we’ve come to find out that there is no right and wrong – unless you shoot a lion. Then ethical relativists suddenly transform into self-righteous moralizers.

Actually, as harsh as it may sound, I’m kind of glad the lion issue happened at the same time the Center for Medical Progress/Planned Parenthood baby body-parts videos are being released. It’s very revealing what captures America’s attention.

Here we have Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, heading up an organization that hunts down marketable livers in the womb, and she gets kudos from Barack Obama for doing so. Meanwhile, a sportsman travels to South Africa to hunt, then unintentionally kills Cecil the Lion and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) call for Palmer to be “extradited, charged, and, preferably, hanged.”

Kill an unborn baby and get funding from the government. Kill a lion and you’re drawn and quartered by the ethical-treatment bunch.

ISIS beheads Christians and plows piles of bodies into unmarked graves and no one gives a damn, but Cecil is decapitated and the hunter becomes the hunted. Come to think of it, more tears have been shed for a dead lion than were shed for Kate Steinle, the woman shot in the back by an illegal felon in a sanctuary city. Then there was the indifference exhibited by Barack Obama, line dancing in Kenya after five unarmed American soldiers were gunned down in a terrorist attack on America’s homeland.

All of this is not surprising, because if I remember correctly the Lion of the Tribe of Judah was nailed to a tree and the lion’s share of the crowd that called for His crucifixion cheered.

Still, I don’t get why Palmer is getting death threats for killing a well-protected animal while currently 4,000, count ’em, 4,000 baby humans are aborted daily.

As far as well-protected environments go, isn’t a mother’s womb supposed to be a protected environment? And if it is, then why do incinerators turn thousands of aborted human beings into ash while the outraged fuss over one dead lion? Maybe it’s because America has been ‘fundamentally transformed’ into a nation where hunting for sport is a no-no, but killing for convenience is a yes-yes.

Sadly, based on the reaction to Cecil’s untimely demise, America is now a place where a dead lion equals hysterical weeping and gnashing of teeth while dead baby parts tagged for sale on a cold stainless-steel tray results in a corporate shoulder shrug.

The dilemma is that as a society we’ve successfully devalued life in the womb. Unfortunately for poor dead Cecil, when one life loses value all lives lose value as well, even a lion’s.

The hunter/dentist isn’t to blame; our culture is to blame because we’ve indoctrinated almost two generations to believe that having a choice trumps the sanctity of life. Now a guy who likes to hunt for sport exercises his right to choose to stalk prey, takes out that prey, and those who ordinarily justify child sacrifice being peddled as women’s healthcare get all apoplectic.

If 60 million living human beings can be legally scalded, scalpeled, and suctioned from the protected environment of the womb, maybe Walter Palmer was under the impression that shooting a lion with a bow and arrow, if he chose to do so, was not a big deal.

Moreover, how is Walter’s quest for personal fulfillment different than a woman seeking a convenience-driven abortion? Both are selfish desires that are satiated by the death of an unsuspecting victim.

Unlike the non-reaction to babies being extricated from the womb in a “less crunchy” manner in order to finance Lamborghinis, the reaction to the dead lion was best witnessed on the CBS show The Talk where host Sharon Osborne’s sentiments bordered on histrionic.

Mrs. O said that as punishment for the dentist hunting and killing “magnificent animals” he should go bankrupt and lose his dental practice. Host Sara Gilbert responded to Sharon’s outrage by waxing philosophical, opining that cows lose their lives every day, and from a cow’s point of view a cow’s life is no less important than the life of a lion.

In other words, in some circles people have the ‘right to choose’ to kill babies but lose the ‘right to choose’ if they’re hunting lions or butchering cows.

And while righteous indignation over Cecil becoming a wall trophy rages on, today in abortion clinics all across America, living human babies will be viciously yanked from the womb and discarded like pieces of garbage.

Cash-4-Cadavers: What’s So Shocking about Selling Baby Parts?

2100f9d5f60818095f8a73dcdfa89305fdeeb1d1b84d0aa8545bba74a6ec6be3_largeOriginally posted at American Thinker

When it comes to ghoulish zeal, Dr. Hannibal Lecter has nothing on Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Deborah Nucatola, except for maybe a few fava beans to accompany his talk of consuming a man’s liver. Whether or not the red wine Dr. Nucatola swigged with her salad was a nice Chianti remains unknown.  A morsel of information that should give pause to Obamacare fans is the realization that the esteemed doctor is also the senior director of medical services at Barack Obama’s favorite taxpayer-funded women’s health clinic/death factory, Planned Parenthood.

Recently, Dr. Nucatola caused quite a stir after being caught on an undercover video nonchalantly stuffing her gullet with crunchy croutons and swilling red wine while discussing crushed bones and baby body parts with two people she mistakenly thought were representatives from a biologics company.

Quite frankly, while talk of forceps-positioning, ultrasound guidance, and preservation of pancreas tissue isn’t exactly appetizing and can be disturbing to mere laypersons, for those of us who expect nothing less from baby murderers, the most surprising thing about the whole Nucatola body-parts disclosure is the fact that some people seem shocked. In a secular society where right and wrong are based on personal beliefs, who’s to say that selling fetal tissue is wrong or immoral?

Therefore, all things considered — including moral relativism — the most surprising part of the Cash-4-Cadavers controversy is that ordinary people who are generally unfazed by 4,000 babies a day being brutally slaughtered are suddenly horrorstruck that babies, after being dismembered with America’s approval, have had their hearts and livers sold for a price.

Isn’t being appalled by an abortion mill selling baby parts for profit sort of like being terrified when realizing Leatherface of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre wears human skin as a facemask, or being shaken up by the story of Ilse Koch, the notorious “Beast of Buchenwald,” making lampshades out of tattooed skin?

What’s clear is that those upset by the recent Planned Parenthood revelations are much more comfortable when the remains of aborted humans are quietly packed into red biohazard bags and shipped off to the crematorium for sanitary out-of-sight, out-of-mind disposal.

What has upset the public so much is Dr. Nucatola’s dispassionate visual of what is actually scraped into those biohazard bags.  So for those who are technically on the side of reproductive rights, the thought of selling bits and pieces of what’s customarily thrown away just seems wrong.

If truth were to be told, based on Dr. Nucatola’s description, Planned Parenthood is just a spiffier version of the notorious Kermit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic in Philadelphia.  Women’s Medical is where unintentionally born-alive babies, rather than being left to die a slow, agonizing death, were put out of their misery by having their spinal cords snipped with dirty scissors.

Granted, Planned Parenthood has sexier slogans, more famous advocates, nicer scrubs, more sterile stirrups, and better post-abortion snacks.  Not only that, but before being sentenced to life in prison, Kermit stored his victims in the freezer or tried to stuff their broken bodies down the toilet.  Rather than take the creepy Jeffrey Dahmer/Kermit Gosnell route, glamorous Barack Obama pals Cecile Richardson and her unapologetic bunch, under the pretense of benevolent tissue donation for medical research, choose instead to sell babies aborted at 20 weeks gestation.

For pragmatists who expect nothing more or less from baby killers, Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts isn’t shocking at all; it’s merely a murder-for-money capitalistic venture that is neither regulated nor demonized by Barack ‘You didn’t build that’ Obama.

Moreover, Barack Obama supporting a business that sells human flesh is also not a big shocker.

Lest we forget, this is a president more upset by CBS White House correspondent Major Garrett asking him how he could celebrate his nuke deal when four Americans are still rotting in an Iranian jail than he is by an innocent American being shot in the back by a five-times deported illegal alien or an organization he supports making Josef Mengele look like Mehmet Oz.

In fact, this may be news to the likes of right-to-choose activists like Barack Obama, Lena Dunham, Scarlett Johansson, and the star-studded “I had an abortion” mob, but Planned Parenthood harvesting and peddling the tissue of dead babies is no different than ISIS trying to sell Western journalist James Foley’s headless body for a million dollars, Uganda sacrificing children at the behest of witchdoctors, or China allocating the organs of death-row prisoners.

Yet, notwithstanding those and many other similarities, there are still die-hard pro-choice advocates who, in response to Dr. Nucatola’s revelations, seem more offended by the manner in which the truth was revealed than they are disgusted by the actual truth that was revealed.  Nonetheless, in the wake of the baby-parts-for-profit disclosure, America should expect to see these deluded individuals double down on defining child sacrifice and tissue and organ trafficking as necessary to ensure women health.

But for the moment, there continues to be widespread public shock over Dr. Nucatola’s remarks.

In response one can’t help but wonder: What exactly do most Americans think goes on in an abortion clinic when two living entities enter the facility and only one emerges? Do Americans view selling dismembered dead babies as worse than dissecting them while they’re still alive? And why, after abortion has been acceptable to America for 40+ years, are so many people disturbed by what happens to the legal victims of terminated pregnancies after they’re killed?

Meanwhile, as outraged as Americans are in reaction to the horror that’s been laid bare, the blood of 60 million baby lambs being silently slaughtered for convenience stains the hands of a nation whose sin is the same as those who watched the smoke rising from the chimneys at Auschwitz while professing not to know what was going on inside.

The Religion of Liberalism and the ‘Killing of Innocents’

unnamedOriginally posted at American Thinker

In his primetime speech about going after ISIL (with that damned whistling S), a sibilant Barack Obama promised America that “[w]e will degrade, and ultimately destroy” the band of head-chopping thugs that, with each passing day, is growing larger and stronger.  The problem for America is that the president conveyed the message with significantly less conviction than when he promised us that with ObamaCare we could keep our own doctors.

In addition to the unconvincing delivery, Barack was wearing way too much pancake makeup, and he was positioned below drapes that, from a certain angle, created an optical illusion of the president sporting two horns that would turn Beelzebub green with envy.

In his speech Obama made “two things clear,” which, as usual, were anything but.

The first was that even though the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIL, are bitter clingers clinging to armaments and the Quran, according to Obama, they are  “not Islamic,” which is sort of like saying that the Christ in “Christian” has nothing to do with Jesus.

The second, more glaring absurdity was made “clear” when America’s Muslim Apologist clarified for us that “[n]o religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIS’s victims have been Muslim.”

This is not a surprising statement, coming from a man who believes that there’s a religious “war on women” over abortion but doesn’t believe we’re at war with a group whose faith endorses beheading non-believers.

Either way, religion is loosely defined as a “body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices,” which means that a person could be religious about things other than God.

Take liberalism, for instance.  Liberalism’s basic tenets, or “particular set of beliefs and practices,” if you will, center on race-baiting, pushing illegal immigration, harping on “climate change,” and furthering unbridled promiscuity.

Adherents of the religion of liberalism evangelize proselytes to hate the U.S. Constitution, despise capitalism, and fervently revere the holy sacrament of abortion.

As defined, liberalism is a faith to which the president is wholeheartedly devoted.

The fact that high priest Barack Obama, as a central tenet of his religion, condones and even funds abortion serves to discredit the very assertion he made about religion and killing innocents.

Even Joe Biden, who practices the mutually exclusive faiths of Catholicism and liberalism, put a spiritual spin on things recently when he vowed that America “will follow [ISIS] to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice, because hell is where they will reside.”

ISIS believes that killing the innocent gains entry into paradise, and many liberals, despite favoring killing the unborn, eagerly look upward to a future in a heavenly home.

But if Joe thinks that killing the innocent results in the killer going to hell, he should really reconsider his support for the hallowed rite of abortion.

Then there’s the religiously liberal/“practicing and respectful Catholic” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who actually had the gall to say that she considers abortion “sacred ground.”

Meanwhile, although clearly appalled by the beheading of two Americans by a masked murderer with a kitchen knife, if Barack Obama were to go tit-for-tat in a “killing of innocents” competition, liberalism far out-kills ISIS.

With 700 Planned Parenthood churches funded by the government all over America, the dismembering, scalding, and suctioning of 3,000-4,000 innocents a day surely surpasses even ISIS’s busiest day of sadistic barbarism in the name of jihad.

But what Obama’s statement that “[n]o religion condones the killing of innocents” fails to acknowledge is that the fundamental religion he himself follows fanatically spills gallons of innocent blood daily.

Let’s face it – with Islam at its core, ISIS/ISIL hasn’t even come close to the 60 million babies who have been slaughtered here in America on liberalism’s bloody altar, and when it comes to killing in the name of religion, the main difference between ISIS and liberalism is that no one videotapes late-term abortions and proudly broadcasts them worldwide.

Rest assured, if abortions were public spectacles instead of private executions, James Foley’s and Steven Sotloff’s grisly murders would be just two in a daily barrage of religious sacrifices justified by equally committed zealots.

Moreover, Obama’s insistence that “the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim” means nothing, especially since his liberal religion champions the rights of minorities while simultaneously destroying those same minorities in high numbers.

According to the CDC’s latest Abortion Surveillance report:

Between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the U.S. were performed on black children, even though blacks make up only 12.8 percent of the population. Another 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and an additional seven percent on other minority races.

So the president citing Muslims killing other Muslims as evidence that ISIS is not Islamic serves only to further indict himself, because killing the offspring of racial subgroups is what liberals do best.

And which is worse: ISIS killing the enemies of their faith by exterminating the potential seed of Muslims from other sects, or liberals decrying ISIS murdering babies while they themselves terminate hundreds of thousands of future liberals every year?

So once again this president has proven that he knows nothing about a subject that he’s unequivocal about when he’s reading off a teleprompter.

Moreover, despite condemning ISIL, Barack Obama ignores its similarities to the doctrine and practices of his own faith, whose rigidly fundamentalist belief system justifies the killing of many more innocents than ISIS.

Utah woman kills and stores seven newborns

casket

Originally posted at Live Action News

Police in Utah recently made a discovery in a Pleasant Grove home they’ll likely never forget. It appears that, over the course of a decade, 39-year-old Megan Huntsman delivered seven full-term infants. The gruesome twist is that Huntsman allegedly killed six of the children after they were born alive, and then stored their bodies in boxes in the home’s garage.

 

Megan Huntsman’s behavior is reminiscent of the late Orem, Utah, mother that covertly gave birth three times and then left the infants to die. In 1999, Darcie Jo Baum bled to death after delivering an infant son in a basement toilet where she left him struggling in vain to survive. Too late to save Darcie Jo and her three babies, Utah instituted a Safe Haven law in 2001, which, if Megan had been unselfish enough to spare their lives, could have saved six human beings.

The Safe Haven law enables biological parents to anonymously relinquish custody of the newborns without the threat of being prosecuted.

Instead of choosing life and anonymity,  alleged serial killer Huntsman chose to consign at least six of her children to a fate the Safe Haven law was enacted to prevent.

As a result, Megan Huntsman is accused of delivering the children, systematically killing them one-by-one, placing them into cardboard boxes, and storing their frail frames like gardening tools or old books in the garage of a house she hasn’t lived in for three years.

In anticipation of moving back into the house owned by his parents for the summer, Megan’s ex-husband Darren West came by to clean up the garage, which is when the gruesome discovery was made. It was Darren who called the police.

Recently released from prison, the police responded to West’s call and after searching the property found one full-term infant inside the woman’s home, there since 2011, that appeared to be stillborn. According to police Capt. Michael Roberts, six dead infants were then discovered packaged up and stored in the garage.

Megan Huntsman and Darren West have three daughters together aged 18, and 20 and 13 years old. The three girls still live in the house where the babies were found. DNA testing is underway to determine whether Mr. West is also the biological father of the seven, count them, seven dead babies.

After the bodies were discovered, Megan, who other than a 2011 driving citation has no criminal record, was taken into custody and accused of six counts of murder. Following her arrest, Huntsman admitted to strangling or suffocating six of the infants. Her bail is set at $6 million, $1 million for each count of murder.

Longtime neighbor Sharon Chipman told police that she had noticed Megan gaining and losing weight over the years but never surmised that she might have been pregnant. Chipman was shocked calling Megan a great neighbor whom she trusted to watch her toddler grandson for years.

“She took good care of him. She was good. This really shocks me,” she said.

Aaron Hawker, Huntsman’s next-door neighbor, also never suspected Huntsman of being pregnant. Mr. Hawker described the mother with the six dead babies in the garage as a great neighbor, and her ex husband (the one who found, may have fathered the children, and who is not being accused of any crime) as “a good guy.”

Clearly after baby number three, Megan exercised unconventional measures in planning her parenthood. After all, in the minds of the Planned Parenthood crowd the desire is that “every child…be a wanted child” or their lives intrinsically lack value.

The question is, could Ms. Huntsman have merely been confused and felt she was exercising her right to choose, but choosing to do it post- (not pre-) birth?

What happens when a child is born alive is a decision Florida Planned Parenthood lobbyist, Alison Laport Snow, on behalf of Planned Parenthood in 2013, proclaimed should be a “left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.” In Huntsman’s case, the physician wasn’t present, so she decided for herself.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEv1afKaLhA[/youtube]

Megan Huntsman is a woman who performed filicide on six of her children whose delicate corpses have lain, some for as long as a decade, in cardboard boxes wrapped in towels like old trophies. Although innocent until proven guilty, for all intents and purposes, and based on her own admission, Megan Huntsman is a bona fide serial killer.

Therefore, considering huge influence Planned Parenthood has had on the thinking of women like Megan Huntsman, maybe in her next FUSE Network interview Cecile Richards could provide her spin on the Huntsman murders.

Perhaps Richards could clarify for America how Megan Huntsman’s actions differed from those of abortionist Kermit Gosnell who saved trophy feet from full term aborted fetuses, or Jeffrey Dahmer who stored parts of his victim’s anatomy in his refrigerator.

Or maybe not.

Do ‘Very Different Views’ Threaten the Sanctity of Life?

cecileOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

The current excuse for justifying illegal immigration is that amnesty benefits our nation’s fiscal health. The thinking is that the economic strength gained by legalizing those who’ve defied America’s rules of entry far outweighs any moral or ethical benefits of upholding the rule of law. Supposedly, that’s why the millions of illegals infiltrating the borders of our sovereign nation are being advocated for by the current administration.

What’s disturbing about that mentality is that if the health of the economy dictates the direction of policy decisions, then the elderly and the infirm have potentially joined the ranks of the unborn, whose lives are already at risk.

Unlike young illegals, older and chronically ill Americans do not contribute to fiscal solvency. While the argument is that amnesty will foster economic strength, it seems that not far behind is the argument that the ailing and the aged add to economic weakness.
Here’s the problem: In America, for 40+ years personal opinion, political leaning, and economic convenience have justified 60+ million Americans not making it out of 60+ million wombs alive.

For four decades, the life of every baby conceived has been at the mercy of one person’s choice. Now, with a political party in power that has wrested the reins of control over healthcare decisions from the individual as well as the free market, older, dependent Americans are potentially also on the precipice of being at the mercy of a renegade government’s “choice.”

Think about it – isn’t “Am I still allowed to do this, or am I still allowed to say that” the question that once-free people are asking themselves more and more lately, especially since government has positioned itself to be as integral to sustaining life as an umbilical cord is to the life of a fetus?

That’s why, as the authority of those whose fundamental agenda is toxic to the sanctity of life continues to grow, in the minds of alert, intelligent people the next question that should arise is: “What happens to those who burden the economy?”

Add to that scenario an imperial president who, with the stroke of a pen, is actively whittling away the right to “life,” – underscore “life” – “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Recently, the danger of putting the economy before a principled ethos, be it in the form of a mother over child, or potentially the government over whole segments of society, took center stage when the daughter of the late Governor Ann Richards of Texas, Cecile Richards – proud President of Planned Parenthood – gave America a free tour of the “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” mindset.

Speaking to Jorge Ramos of the new ABC/Disney/Univision Fusion network, Richards revealed an attitude that should send shivers up the spine of every involuntary recipient of government largesse.

Ramos asked Richards a question reminiscent of the “above my pay grade” human-rights question that Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Ramos to Richards: “So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”

Clad appropriately in blood-red, Richards punted to the centuries-old debate/moral relevancy corner when she basically refused to answer, saying, “This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.”

Alarmingly, in liberal circles “very different views” are the new standards that determine ethical verdicts, which are then either sanctioned or deemed illegal by dictatorial rule.

Ramos pressed on: “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you think life starts?” Attempting to skirt the issue Cecile said, “I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

The old and sickly especially should take note of Richards’ unwillingness to answer Ramos’ question, because for organizations that receive government support to snuff out human life, the point of viability is apparently not relevant in discussions about life-and-death.

Remember that America is currently being governed by a president who defines “healthcare” as something that includes the right to terminate life. Worse yet, behind closed doors Obama has consistently elevated his “very different views” above the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution.

Richards went on to say that (just like the liberal view that the illegality of sneaking over the border should not be part of the amnesty conversation) fetal life is not really relevant to the abortion conversation.

Translation: Purposeful deprivation of life isn’t the issue, because according to Ms. Richards, for her three children who miraculously made it out of her womb alive, her “very different view” is that “life began when I delivered them.”

The question then becomes: How long before the government’s “very different view” is that, along with economy-boosting illegals being granted legal amnesty, undue economic stressors should be legally eliminated?

With that in mind, it’s not hard to imagine that one day, when asked if it is ethical to terminate or grant life based solely on economic standards, the answer from people like Barack Obama could be, “That is not something government feels really should be part of this conversation.”

 Roe-v-Wade-1

Proud Abortion Advocates Come Out of the Closet

Closet

Originally posted at Live Action News

Typically, “coming out of the closet” has to do with one’s sexual orientation. But “coming out” also means ’fessing up to something you’ve kept secret in order to avoid embarrassment.

When it comes to the subject of abortion, having a vehemently radical pro-choice advocate in the White House has emboldened militant abortion and even latent infanticide supporters to slowly inch their way of the closet.

A prime example of someone who’s no longer embarrassed is Melissa Harris-Perry. Melissa is the tampon-earring-wearing, Mitt Romney black-grandson-mocking talking head from MSNBC.

No longer ashamed of embracing the unthinkable, Melissa joined the ranks of bioethicists when she said she believes that life begins when parents “feel” life begins. Harris-Perry came out of the antiquated first-trimester closet when she answered her own question: “When does life begin?” Melissa’s answer: “[it] depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents.”

 

The implication of such a dramatic statement is that abortion is acceptable as long as the parents of an unborn child have the “feeling” that their baby is not a fully living human being. That sort of twisted philosophy seems to imply that freedom of choice can be exercised at any time, at any age.

Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow testified against a Florida bill that would require that babies born alive in botched abortions be given medical care. When asked the question, “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Ms. LaPolt Snow stuck her head out of the infanticide closet and said, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Recently, yet another representative came out at odds with those who oppose baby-killing. This time it was Planned Parenthood board member Valerie Tarico, Ph.D.

Besides Dr. Tarico being an angry ex-evangelical schooled at Wheaton College, home to The Billy Graham Center for Evangelicalism, she’s also one of 400 members of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest’s Board of Advocates, all of whom are united by their “personal integrity and commitment to the Planned Parenthood mission.”

How anyone can associate “personal integrity” with the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is in itself perplexing. Clearly, what is going on is an appeal to Americans who are abortion-friendly but conscience-conflicted. Tarico’s goal is to lay out a convincing argument that “it is morally or spiritually imperative that a woman can stop a pregnancy that is underway.”

To prove it, it appears the “born again” abortion promoter’s life goal is to convince the flock and anyone else who will fall for her twisted theological viewpoint that abortion is both ethically and spiritually acceptable.

In an article entitled “Abortion as a Blessing, Grace, or Gift – Changing the Conversation about Moral Values,” Valerie presents a recipe for abortion advocates to use so that the First Church of Feticide can “reclaim the moral high ground in the [abortion] debate.”

She defines “being able to stop an ill-conceived gestation” as a “sacred gift.” The author also portrays those who do the actual baby-butchering as doing the work of God. Ironically, the God she tries to imply they’re doing the work for is the main character in a Bible Valerie spends an inordinate amount of time mocking.

In other words, Tarico has come out of the closet as an abortion advocate on behalf of those who aren’t as flippant about the unthinkable as Melissa Harris-Perry and Alisa LaPolt Snow.

In Tarico’s past philosophical rantings, she mentions the value of “chosen children.” Citing “a personal example,” in her blog Tarico tells the story of why, over fear of possible toxoplasmosis-induced blindness and brain lesions, she aborted her unborn child after the first trimester.

Her reasoning concerns the higher moral ground and the sacredness of the larger village. Tarico said she feared that by having sightless offspring, she’d be negatively impacting that child and any future children, should she decide to let any of them live. In addition, she’d be “risking [the] ability to give to the community [and] possibly creating a situation in which our family needed to suck more out of society than we could put back into it.”

The only thing missing from Valerie Tarico’s abortion-as-religion argument is the moral and spiritual validation of Melissa Harris-Perry’s belief and Planned Parenthood’s practice of slaying newborn babies.

It’s undeniable that embarrassments over points of view and actions that used to be shameful and kept to oneself are gone. Instead, there are those emerging unabashed from the darkest closets who push pseudo-religiosity in hopes of spiritualizing selfishness and endorsing murder.

%d bloggers like this: