Planned Parenthood: Defund Now

What does it take to inform the American people of a holocaust? Planned Parenthood performs approximately 330,000 abortions annually, yet surveys show that while the organization has a near 100% name identity, only about 45% of those questioned know that its primary function is to promote abortion.

Cecile RichardsNow that’s not what the organization says, of course. It’s all for “women’s health.” Cecile Richards, the head of this butcher shop, went on ABC’s “This Week” for an interview, in which she did the usual thing—attack the integrity of those who caught Planned Parenthood doctors bartering for the sale of babies’ body parts. You see, those are the real perpetrators of evil in her view, not the organization that would feel comfortable in Hitler’s Germany.

Margaret SangerLest you think I’m exaggerating, keep in mind that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, had ties with Nazi doctors who even wrote articles in her journal. She also, like Hitler, was a great advocate of eugenics, and she sought, like Hitler, to exterminate certain races of people who were, in her mind, too backward to benefit society. African Americans were high on her list. Planned Parenthood even had something called “The Negro Project,” the purpose of which was to limit the number of black babies born.

We like to think of ourselves as more civilized in the 21st century. Where did we ever get that idea? More than 56 million innocent lives taken by abortion since 1973 and now the revelation that we treat the body parts of those innocent children as commodities to be sold should put to rest that lie. Those who do such things are depraved human beings, and we have become more barbaric than in the past.

Progress

Another awful truth that goes along with this is that the federal government funds this atrocious organization to the tune of half a billion dollars per year.

Blood Money

No wonder Planned Parenthood comes out swinging and trying to position itself as a savior for women and the victim of highly edited videos. It doesn’t want its cozy little relationship with the government and the money it provides to be altered in any way.

Bundle of Joy

Republican leadership in the Congress has dropped the ball on the defunding effort. Despite promises that they would lead the pro-life fight, both Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stalled those efforts. Boehner says he needs more evidence first; McConnell refused to allow a defunding amendment to be added to another bill that would have required only 51 votes to pass. He now says he will offer a stand-alone bill to defund the organization, but that requires 60 votes for passage. Is it any wonder there is a brewing conservative revolt against this type of “leadership”?

As for the Democrats, if you will go back up to the photo of Cecile Richards, you will see the logo behind her is “DNC.” That stands for Democratic National Committee. Democrats are fully on board with the Planned Parenthood agenda.

As I’ve noted before, but bears repeating again, Barack Obama was the first president ever to speak to a gathering of Planned Parenthood backers and gave them his blessing for their “work.” He also invoked God’s blessing on them.

Never Mind

Then there’s the current frontrunner for the Democrat nomination who has linked herself closely with Planned Parenthood, who has publicly praised Sanger, and who has received the Margaret Sanger Award. What an honor to be tied to a racist eugenicist.

Hillary-PP

This monstrosity needs to be defunded immediately, and anyone who claims the name of Christ as Lord and Savior must roundly denounce Planned Parenthood for the sinful, depraved organization that it is. Anything less is a denial of Christ Himself.

The “Death to America” Deal

The Iran deal is now in Congress, open for debate. The Obama administration gave precedence to the United Nations, taking the deal there first for its approval—which it got, of course. They say it’s because other nations were involved as well, but how does that trump (excuse my use of that word) the Constitution’s specific requirement that all such deals should be subject to a 2/3 Senate approval?

This deal is just so good, we’re told, that we simply cannot pass it up.

Deal

Remind me never to have John Kerry negotiate anything on my behalf:

Good Deal

Iran Nuke Deal

What about all those demands and/or requirements we were told Iran would have to abide by? Now we find out there were a couple of “secret” deals on the side that weren’t supposed to be made public, like allowing Iran to provide the specimens to be tested to determine if they are keeping their word on nuclear development. Isn’t that somewhat like letting Hitler demonstrate how nicely he was treating the Jews?

Piece in Our Time

What’s even more revealing is that since this deal was reached, the rhetoric of the Iran regime hasn’t changed one bit, which a befuddled Kerry finds somewhat disturbing.

Compromise

Before & After

But don’t worry. If the Congress rejects this deal, our president will be right there to uphold it.

Veto Any Bill

He’s never met an Islamic terrorist he can identify:

It's a Duck

Iran is a terrorist regime. We have just concluded an agreement with that regime that will allow it to develop nuclear weapons. Congress has a responsibility to shoot it down, first with a vote to negate it, then with an override of a presidential veto. Will there be enough backbone to accomplish this? The jury is still out.

The Trump Factor

Donald TrumpYes, I must write about Donald Trump. He’s become such a controversial figure that I have no choice. One wing of Republicans seem to view him as the straight-talking savior they’ve been waiting for, while a broad swath of Republicans deem him the out-of-control candidate that is going to ruin everything. Which group is closer to the truth?

I hoped Trump would not jump into the presidential race. When he took the plunge, I didn’t anticipate he would do so well in the polls. So it’s crucial to know Trump’s character and where he stands on issues, both past and present.

He created a stir with the announcement of his candidacy when he attacked the government’s policies (or lack thereof) on illegal immigration. Most of the country agrees with the anger he expressed over that issue. Critics pointed, though, to his choice of words when speaking of Mexico; they said he was painting a broad brush and stereotyping.

This past weekend, new controversy ensued when, at a forum in Iowa that included most of the Republican candidates, he commented that John McCain was not all that much of a hero for suffering torture during the Vietnam War. He said he preferred people who didn’t get captured, thereby seeming to denigrate not only McCain for having been captured, but all prisoners of war.

Got My Vote

The furor over this has been high-pitched, and may I say, rightly so. One doesn’t have to particularly appreciate McCain’s record as a senator to feel this was a low blow at someone who did suffer significantly during that war. He didn’t choose to be a prisoner of war; he didn’t become one because he was a “loser,” which was the impression Trump gave.

Trump is hitting a nerve with some Republicans who are angry with Obama and fed up with the lackluster performance of a Republican party that controls the Congress and could be setting a stronger agenda. Trump is their outlet.

To jump on the Trump bandwagon is a big blunder for Republicans.

Let’s start with what he really believes. Talk about evolving—he is the champion in that sphere.

His history of political donations leans heavily Democrat, even to the support of Hillary Clinton. He is on record as favoring Obamacare and would like to see America go further and adopt the Canadian universal healthcare system.

On the illegal immigration issue, where he is making a huge splash today, back in 2012, he criticized Romney for being too harsh with his “self-deportation” comments.

He’s always been a supporter of abortion “rights” and is, we are told, “evolving” on the same-sex marriage issue.

The controversy over the McCain comment overshadowed another one he made at that same Iowa forum: he said he had never asked God for forgiveness for anything. According to those who reported on the aftermath of his time on stage there, that was the comment that created the most stir in the audience, as many, for the first time, realized he has no concept of what it means to be a Christian.

When I look at Donald Trump, I see a man who is in love with himself more than anything else. He is self-centered to the max, akin to Barack Obama’s constant usage of the words “I,” “my,” and “me” in all his speeches.

Trump seems to think he deserves to be president because he has made a lot of money (to which he refers constantly) and is super-smart.

For all these reasons, I cannot support the Trump candidacy, and I think Republicans in general, and Christians specifically, who do support him are either ignorant of his true character and beliefs or are letting their anger over what is occurring in our nation influence their vote.

Some seek to portray the Trump candidacy as a split between true conservatives (his supporters) and the Republican wishy-washy establishment that fears he will take away their authority.

Combover

That’s not an accurate assessment. Those who understand Biblical truths and a conservative philosophy of government should be the first to avoid a Trump candidacy.

And all those “establishment” Republicans? They have a point. Trump, when asked directly, refused to rule out a third-party candidacy if he should not win the Republican nomination.

I can say with some assurance that he will not win the Republican nomination. If he then follows through with a third-party candidacy, what will be the result?

Welcome to the Hillary Clinton presidency.

That, by itself, should be enough to shake his supporters out of their dream world. He could be the instrument for ushering in a new nightmare.

It was a strong third-party candidacy—Ross Perot back in 1992—that gave us Bill Clinton. Isn’t it time to learn something from history?

Standing Athwart the Culture Yelling “Stop!”

What is left to say about our president that I already haven’t said in this blog? I’ve done my best to be honest and forthright about his radicalism, both culturally and politically, yet I don’t feel I can stop and say, “Well, that about covers it; on to the next topic.”

Actually, I do make a conscious effort not to make Obama the subject each day, but he keeps on doing things that force me to focus on him again. His choices for when to interject himself into the news, for instance, are always worthy of comment:

Obama Speaks Out

And we would all be hearing a whole lot more all the time about his many attempts to destroy political enemies, if not for the connivance of the press corps to avoid mentioning such embarrassing episodes:

Confidentiality

Richard Nixon was an amateur in these matters compared to Obama, yet the former was driven from office while the latter gets virtually no pressure from those who like to call themselves the “watchdogs” over politicians. They’re more like well-trained poodles.

The latest fiasco is also the most dangerous and foolish, simultaneously—the pending deal with Iran.

Have you noticed that Obama seems to have less difficulty working with terrorists who continue to chant “Death to America” even while he’s speaking with them than with Republicans in Congress?

Finally

Then, when one member of the press goes off the rails and actually questions Obama’s lack of concern for the American hostages who are still being held by Iran, he becomes sarcastic and does his best to demean the reporter publicly. No one likes to have a complete “cave” pointed out:

Keep the Hostages

The only place where there is any rejoicing over this “deal” is in Iran:

Hard Bargain

The ultimate insult to the Congress is that the deal is going to be presented to the United Nations first, to get its approval to lift all sanctions. This is just another example of Obama’s utter contempt for America’s Constitution. He’s a Citizen of the World in his heart, not the United States.

So why do I continue to write about our president? Even if it does no good, there needs to be an ongoing witness to the truth.

I’m reminded of a conversation William F. Buckley had with Whittaker Chambers back in the mid-1950s when he was trying to bring Chambers aboard as a contributor to his new magazine National Review. Here’s how Buckley described what transpired in that talk:

Whittaker Chambers 1A year before National Review was founded, I spent an evening with Whittaker Chambers, and he asked me, half provocatively, half seriously, what exactly it was that my prospective journal would seek to save.

I trotted out a few platitudes of the sort one might expect from a twenty-eight-year-old fogy, about the virtues of a free society. He wrestled with me by obtruding the dark historicism for which he had become renowned. Don’t you see? he said. The West is doomed, so that any effort to save it is correspondingly doomed to failure. . . .

But that night, challenged by his pessimism, I said to him that if it were so that providence had rung up our license on liberty, stamping it as expired, the Republic deserved a journal that would argue the historical and moral case that we ought to have survived: that, weighing the alternative, the culture of liberty deserves to survive.

So that even if the worst were to happen, the journal in which I hoped he would collaborate might serve, so to speak, as the diaries of Anne Frank had served, as absolute, dispositive proof that she should have survived, in place of her tormentors—who ultimately perished. In due course that argument prevailed, and Chambers joined the staff.

Even if, ultimately, we don’t win the argument with the culture, it is imperative that the argument be made. For me, it’s a matter of being faithful to what God has called me to be—one of those voices standing athwart the culture yelling “Stop!”

Only when there are enough voices doing so, and enough courageous individuals who will act on what they are saying, will we have any hope of successfully challenging the spirit of this age.

The New Munich & Yalta–Only Worse

Although the details of the new “agreement” with Iran have not been fully released, enough of them have become public to make it clear this is one of the all-time great sellouts in American history, going beyond even the Yalta Conference at the end of WWII when the store was given away to the Soviets.

Nearly every Republican lawmaker and presidential candidate have already come out against it. The comparisons to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who infamously sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler at the Munich Conference in 1938 have begun to proliferate—and rightly so.

Chamberlain-Obama

What do we already know about this agreement? Only that the negotiators on the American side, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, backed down on every point that they had told us they would not compromise.

Despite Obama’s rhetoric yesterday in his announcement, the agreement gives the green light to Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Oh, they are supposed to put it on hold for now, but in about a decade, all constraints are lifted.

What else was dropped from the discussions? They don’t have to be held to immediate inspections to be sure they are keeping their word. Any request to carry out an inspection must first come to a committee—on which Iran is a member—for a decision. And that committee has up to 24 days to make the decision. So much for “snap” inspections.

But that doesn’t bother our president or secretary of state. They have Iran’s word, and that is sufficient for them.

Got Nukes

All economic sanctions against Iran are now dropped, and the result will be billions of dollars that this terrorist nation can now devote to more terrorism. They can even obtain ballistic missiles.

What a great deal—for Iran.

It's a Deal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, clear-headed as always, immediately denounced this deal, knowing full well that Israel is now more threatened than ever, given that Iran has never walked back its promise to wipe that nation off the map. Netanyahu put the world on notice that the deal will not be recognized as legitimate by Israel; they will defend themselves as necessary.

This comes down to the biggest problem of all: Obama’s naïve and foolish belief that once Iran is welcomed into the so-called community of nations, it will magically become civilized and change its very nature. He continues to see the U.S. as the problem in the world; if we are just “nice” enough, all evil will drain out of terrorists.

The academic word for that is “baloney.” Even while these negotiations were ongoing, Iran’s leaders were publicly giving voice to their true intentions:

Famous Last Words

Then there’s the constitutional issue. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states, rather clearly, “He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Notice the 2/3 requirement. Any treaty negotiated with foreign nations must come before the Senate and get the approval of 2/3 of that body.

That’s not happening in this instance.

Verbal slight of hand is being used to say this is not a treaty, but merely an “executive agreement,” an entity that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. So the administration argues that it can go into effect without the 2/3 concurrence of the Senate.

Instead, it will go to the Senate for a vote, and if 3/5 of the senators (60 of them) disapprove, it will be rejected but subject to the president’s veto. Should that occur, the Senate will then have to come up with a 2/3 vote to override the veto.

Notice that the entire approval process has been reversed. Rather than a 2/3 approval up front (67 senators in favor), this agreement could go into effect provided only 51 approve of it. The burden will be on those who disapprove to get to 60 votes. And then they will have to round up 67 to override a veto.

This is blatantly unconstitutional. But what else is new in a Barack Obama presidency?

This deal is worse than Munich or Yalta because neither of them allowed the development of nuclear weapons in a terrorist state. Republicans need to stand firm. Democrats who say they are opposed to terrorism and are in favor of remaining a strong ally of Israel need to find a backbone somewhere. That’s the only way this abomination will be defeated.

Sanctuary City Chaos

Kate Steinle-Francisco SanchezKate Steinle’s body has been laid to rest. Her family is still stunned by how she was wantonly shot dead on a San Francisco pier by Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had been jailed on drug charges. Why was he still in this country? Why was he not in the hands of Immigration and Customs?

Ask Sanchez, and he will tell you—as he did when asked by authorities—that he went to San Francisco because it was a “sanctuary city” that would not question his immigration status or history of crime.

There are more than 200 such cities in the United States. Here’s a map that shows some of them.

Sanctuary Cities

What these sanctuary cities actually accomplish is the negation of the rule of law.

Sanctuary Cities

More Police Brutality

This has angered many people, and some high-profile programs on Fox News have taken up the challenge to change the way we deal with illegal immigration.

Kate Steinle-Bill O'Reilly

Bill O’Reilly, for instance, is pushing Congress for a law, duly named “Kate’s Law,” so that “undocumented aliens who are deported and return to the United States would receive a mandatory five year sentence in a federal penitentiary upon conviction.”

Megyn Kelly also has taken up the cudgel, focusing on the disparity in reaction from President Obama in this case as compared with other cases in which he inserted his opinion immediately. He has made no public statement about the Steinle murder.

Kate Steinle-Megyn Kelly

Of course, the reason he is silent is obvious: this tragic event doesn’t fit with his agenda; it would, instead, undermine his lax immigration enforcement and his support for the sanctuary city movement. This president is complicit in destroying the rule of law in so many ways, I have lost count, but this is another example.

Deported Man

Obama is quick to call Obamacare and same-sex marriage settled law that everyone must obey, but not so much immigration law. It’s a pick-and-choose thing dependent on whether it advances his radical ideology.

America has always been the most welcoming nation in the world to immigrants, but always with a view to following the rules. There is no “right” of immigration to another country. Mexico’s laws against illegal immigration are harsh. Try to become a Swiss citizen and you will probably fail in the effort.

So I’m not making a case for hard-hearted rejection of immigrants, but for a thoughtful and fair system for allowing immigration to take place in an orderly manner. The rule of law must prevail or we will hasten our descent into chaos, which will then be “corrected” by totalitarianism.

A Time for Boldness

Supreme Court aside, we are changing as a nation regardless. For years, conservatives have comforted themselves by saying that the majority of Americans still hold to traditional morality despite the trend of the government and the media, yet if polls are to be believed—and there is always a caution with that—the majority may no longer be tied to the Biblical values that have characterized our national framework of thinking. We may be on the verge of a radical transformation.

Self Identify

Even though this development is due primarily to a loss of our Biblical foundations, it has been helped along considerably by approval from the top of our government:

Bigot

The radical shift has manifested itself most prominently on the issue of homosexuality, of course. And let’s be honest—same-sex marriage was merely the window dressing for a movement that doesn’t believe in marriage at all, and that seeks the removal of all Biblical morality from our culture. It is every bit as totalitarian in nature as the terrorist threat we face:

Convert

The breeding ground for all of this is the education system. We can complain all we want about how terrible it is and how America’s children are not being educated, but I believe it actually is accomplishing the purposes of those who are directing this system. The goal for many in the educational establishment is to create a generation without any real knowledge of or appreciation for history, government, and Biblical morality.

It begins at the secondary level and extends all the way through college. Take, for instance, the pronouncement by Janet Napolitano, who now heads the University of California system, as to what professors are allowed or not allowed to say:

That Stupid

This radical transformation of our society is pervasive, and it will take a major effort on our part to forestall this transformation. Politics and government are not the primary means for reversing the trend, but they do reflect who we are as a people. If we really want to see a change, we need to redouble our commitment to the real transforming power: the true Gospel message that changes hearts and minds. When we do that God’s way, we will see changes take place in the society overall and the government specifically.

Christians need to take their message to the nation more boldly than ever. We need to stand firm and be wise in how we communicate. We need to vote accordingly. Now is not the time to retreat into a shell; rather, the battle is upon us, and we need to call upon the Lord for the courage to wage it.