Funding an Abomination

Planned Parenthood was in the news this past week. An undercover sting videoed a PP clinic manager in New Jersey coaching two individuals presenting themselves as a pimp and an underage prostitute on how to cover up their illicit business.

This type of thing is not unusual at Planned Parenthood. A few years ago, someone recorded a phone conversation with a clinic employee in which the caller said he wanted to donate to the organization, but he wanted his money to go toward reducing the number of black babies being born. The employee said that would be no problem; they could direct the money as he wished.

It’s hard to believe that many people still don’t grasp the nature of this organization. It is the foremost provider of abortions in the world, yet the name itself—Planned Parenthood—sounds so good. I mean, who could ever be in favor of chaotic parenthood? Sometimes, if you win the semantic war, you can create an image that looks respectable when, in fact, you may be one of the most reprehensible agencies on the planet.

Planned Parenthood qualifies as a reprehensible agency—easily in the top ten in reprehensibility, if that is a valid word.

All one has to do is investigate the founder, Margaret Sanger. She was a full-blown eugenicist, a pseudo-science popular in the early twentieth century that believed in creating superior people through the right kind of breeding. What, specifically, did Sanger promote?

  • The elimination of what she called “human weeds.” Is that any way to talk about human beings made in the image of God?
  • The cessation of all charity. After all, if you help those human weeds, they will only proliferate, which is bad for society.
  • The segregation of “genetically inferior races.” For Sanger, blacks qualified as one of the inferior races. She started the “Negro Project,” the purpose of which was to stop blacks from having too many children. She didn’t wish to see such an “inferior race” propagate itself.
  • To accomplish her goals, she advocated birth control methods, not simply for parents to choose when to have children, but to ensure that only the “best races” would have the most children. As techniques advanced, birth control was joined by abortion as a legitimate means for controlling designated populations.
  • Complete sexual freedom, undermining the institution of marriage and promoting promiscuity. Currently, Planned Parenthood teaches young people to “explore” their sexuality without guilt. Nothing is out of bounds if you really want to experiment.
  • Socialism—she desired the government to step in and direct society.

What a list. Could she possibly be one of the worst individuals in the history of our nation? Here’s a fascinating photo of Sanger speaking to a group that should be easily recognized:

Historically, Planned Parenthood has been a blatantly racist organization. Presently, it pushes sexual immorality of all types and seeks to demolish all Christian morality in society. Yet our federal government continues to fund this abomination. As we seek to cut back on government spending, might I offer a suggestion?

There are Republican congressmen who are trying to defund all abortion providers. They need our support. Pray that they succeed.

Journalism's Golden Age Never Existed

Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center had an excellent article yesterday dealing with the lack of coverage in the mainstream media of abortion news. He cited two events in particular. The first has to do with the atrocious activities of the abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who regularly practiced severing the spinal cords of babies born alive during abortions. Except for a few stories on Fox News and CNN, one would search in vain to find any real treatment of this tale of horror, whether on television or in the print media.

What makes it even worse is that this is undoubtedly the very tip of that proverbial iceberg—this is happening in many places,  but not being reported.

Gosnell’s indictment is unusual. But would it be so unusual if media  sources were doing their jobs?

Then there was the annual pro-life march in Washington on that most dismal of all anniversaries, Roe v. Wade. If not for a few news outlets, most Americans would be unaware that it occurred. Yet it constantly draws from 100,000 to 200,000 each year. Shouldn’t that be a major story?

Rather than try to duplicate Bozell’s efforts, I simply encourage you to read his article for the details.

Many commentators wonder what has happened to journalism. Why has it become so lopsided? In truth, I’m not so sure journalism ever has been the paragon of news virtue that so many believe it was. Was there really a Golden Age of Journalism and a pinnacle from which we have fallen, or have there always been issues with journalists?

Where do find such a Golden Age? Is it to be discovered in the early years of America when political parties set up their own newspapers to promote their particular points of view and disparage the other side? Could it be in later years when the practice of journalism became more “professional”? Weren’t the professional journalists the ones who turned the 1925 Scopes Trial into a national circus, skewering those who didn’t want evolution taught in the schools? While I am in favor of a free press, journalism has undermined itself repeatedly.

There have always been egregious examples of biased and/or sloppy journalism. The difference now may be that it is being celebrated and promoted as “the right way” to proceed:

What are you paying for when you send your child to college to study journalism?

I’m not convinced that journalists today are worse than their predecessors, but I am totally convinced that the teaching of journalism has become systematically corrupted. We have now institutionalized the bias.

Legal … But Immoral

Thirty-eight years ago today, the United States Supreme Court decided that innocent children could be put to death. That statement may be jarring to some, but that’s exactly what Roe v. Wade accomplished. More than fifty million “legal” abortions have been performed in those thirty-eight years.

Something can be legal and still be immoral.

As a society, we have become numb to the atrocity. We treat it simply as a political issue rather than an issue of life or death. A society with a seared conscience will develop a callousness that will affect its whole approach to sanctity of life.

Every once in a while something occurs that shocks even the most jaded. This past week, an abortionist in Philadelphia, Kermit Gosnell, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of murder and infanticide for his abhorrent practices. Gosnell regularly delivered live, viable babies and then murdered them by severing their spinal cords with scissors. He referred to this procedure as “ensuring fetal demise,” a cold-blooded euphemism for barbarism. Mothers also died in his “clinic.” For more detailed information on this atrocity, go to this article. It includes a list of government and health agencies who knew what was going on but did nothing to stop it.

Polls now show that a majority of Americans are opposed to abortion on demand. Republicans are speaking forcefully about passing a bill that will end all federal funding of abortion. There is one person who stands in the way, though:

President Obama famously made that comment at Saddleback Church during his 2008 campaign. Not only was it a dodge, it was deceptive. I’ve noted this before, but it’s worth repeating again, that when he was a state senator in Illinois, he fought against a bill that would have allowed doctors to provide medical assistance to babies “accidentally” born alive during an abortion. To allow such a thing, he stated, would be a slippery slope leading to the overturning of a woman’s “right” to choose. One cartoonist captured his stance poignantly:

For someone who claims the issue of when life begins is above his pay grade, he didn’t hesitate to decide that a baby born alive didn’t deserve to stay alive. Obama’s actions were a prime example of the moral depravity that threatens to engulf us.

On this day when we remember all those who have lost their lives through the sin of abortion, let’s pray for a change in the government’s policy and for a revival of the concept of the sanctity of innocent life. Then let’s act in accordance with our prayers.

May Another Man Take His Place

Lakeland, where I live, is close to Orlando, where possibly the most obnoxious, nasty, and uncouth congressman in the nation lives. He’s so over the line that he became national news even before his run for reelection.

His name is Alan Grayson, who first received widespread media attention during the healthcare debate when he declared that the only plan for healthcare that Republicans had was for people to “die quickly.” Note the picture of Grayson with his chart on the floor of the House.

He seemed to relish the publicity because he then continued to make outrageous statements and conduct himself in a bizarre manner; apparently he enjoyed the national notoriety. What else has he done?

Appearing on Chris Matthews’s program, he claimed that he has trouble listening to Dick Cheney “because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking.”

Last April, he walked into a conservative meeting in an Orlando restaurant, uninvited, and started yelling at the group.

He has been accused of financially propping up a Tea Party candidate for his own seat in order to divide the Republican vote. Just yesterday, he was served with a subpoena. While he denies any knowledge of this, it’s rather obvious that he is involved.

His latest outrage is an ad he has run against his Republican opponent Daniel Webster, in which he refers to Webster as “Taliban Dan.” Why? Well, it seems that Webster is an evangelical Christian who doesn’t support abortion. That equates with being a Taliban. In addition, the ad takes a snippet of a sentence from Webster that gives the impression that Webster is telling his wife to submit to him—just like the dictatorial Taliban.

In fact, the Webster speech from which the phrase was lifted was one that he delivered to a group of Christian men where he was saying that men should not focus on the Biblical injunction that wives are to submit to their husbands, but that instead they should pay more attention to the rest of the exhortation where they are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church—He laid down His life for the church, so husbands are to do the same for their wives.

Challenged with the fact that he took Webster completely out of context, Grayson continued to claim that his ad was accurate. He even received a verbal rebuke from an MSNBC reporter for this falsehood. MSNBC! How often does that happen? This is a man out of control. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi saying she was going to preside over a House of unparalleled integrity.

The sweet side of all this is that Webster, ever since this insufferable ad has started running, has reaped thousands in campaign donations. And a new poll shows Grayson seven points behind Webster in spite of the Democrat’s overwhelming money advantage.

If ever a man deserved to be kicked out of Congress, Alan Grayson is that man.

Restoring Federalism: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment

Yesterday, my posting on Big Government appeared—a commentary on the Seventeenth Amendment, which changed how senators are chosen. The repercussions of this change are many, yet most people are unaware of them. Roe v. Wade, for instance, may have come about partially because of this amendment. If you are interested, go to

Obama's Religious Beliefs

A poll stunned the news media last week, and its reverberations haven’t ceased. Fully one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Reaction from the White House and the news media has been identical: no, that’s mistaken—Obama is a Christian. Even conservative commentators and news media have taken up the same chant.

What’s the truth?

First, I don’t believe Obama is a Muslim. To be a real Muslim, he would have to be adhering to all the tenets of Muslim belief. Is he praying five times a day toward Mecca? I doubt it—unless he does it on the golf course. He’s obviously not an observant Muslim. Yes, he was raised as one as a child, but I don’t honestly think he is committed to that today. You can understand the confusion of the populace, however, since he definitely comes across as sympathetic to Muslim causes. He’s always praising Muslim influence in the world and, supposedly, in the United States.

But that doesn’t make him a Muslim.

So then he must be a Christian, right? After all, he went to a church for over twenty years. Is that what it takes to be a Christian? The problem with the political and media response—yes, he’s a Christian—is that it is based on externals only. And even those are abysmally weak.

What about that church he attended? Surely you remember the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of that church. He is an adherent of black liberation theology, which turns Jesus into merely a great man who came to set free those who are oppressed politically. He attempted to “save” them from the oppressor but was cruelly crucified for trying to do so. It’s a Marxist theology.

This is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is not the message of salvation.

Jeremiah Wright is a radical of radicals, devoted to the Palestinian cause, saying America, by supporting Israel, is sponsoring state terrorism. The terrorist group Hamas, on the other hand, has been given a voice in Wright’s church bulletins.

Wright’s other highlights: Jesus was black and was oppressed by white Europeans; the American government created HIV to commit genocide against minorities; America is worse than the Islamic extremists because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; 9/11 was simply the “chickens coming home to roost” because America’s policies deserved that response.

This was Obama’s pastor for more than twenty years. There’s nothing orthodox Christian about him.

Obama himself, in a 2004 newspaper interview said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.” In other words, there is nothing unique about Christianity or the person of Jesus. All paths lead to the same place. That’s a direct contradiction of the Biblical dictum that Jesus is the only way and the only truth.

In that same interview, he stated,

The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they’re going to hell.

Notice he calls this a “difficult thing,” something he clearly doesn’t accept. Consequently, he doesn’t really believe the Christian message because he doesn’t believe someone will be separated from God if they don’t have faith in Christ, nor does he believe in spreading the message.

Obama is not a Christian.

We’re also told by Jesus that you will know true Christians by the fruit of their lives. This doesn’t mean that Christians will always be consistent with their confession of faith; they will do things at times for which they need to repent. However, if one promotes continually positions that are at odds with Biblical morality, how can one really be a Christian? Let’s look at the record:

Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, vocally and forcefully fought against allowing doctors to come to the aid of children born alive in an attempted abortion. This is infanticide, pure and simple.

Here are more:

  1. He is one of the foremost politicians in favor of paying for abortions with taxpayer money.
  2. He advocates embryonic stem cell research.
  3. He advocates repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.
  4. He advocates repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military.
  5. While saying he opposes same-sex marriage, his actions indicate just the opposite.

These are the most obvious issues. There are others I could point to, but they are derivatives of these.

Based on everything I know about Barack Obama, there is no way I can consider him a Christian. Yet like everyone else, he is a potential Christian. The path is the same for everyone: recognition of sin, genuine repentance over one’s sins, faith in the atonement of the Son of God [not just a great man sent by God], and a life that shows the fruit of that faith. Nothing short of that qualifies as Christian.

More Non-News News

While most of the world is entranced by the travails of Lindsay Lohan and other high-profile stories, I’ve been following the non-news news—you know, the real news that is considered non-news by most of the mainstream media. Let me give some examples.

First: Remember that executive order President Obama signed saying that his healthcare bill wouldn’t fund abortions? The one that brought all the supposedly pro-life Democrats on board? The one that I and many others said at the time was entirely bogus because he would never keep his word?

Here’s the latest on that: we are now told that Health and Human Services will be giving $160 million to Pennsylvania to cover the cost of any abortions legal in the state. Apparently, New Mexico also will be receiving funds for the same purpose. These may be just the first two of many. Republican minority leader John Boehner sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius in May asking how her department was going to ensure that Obama’s executive order will be carried out. He has never received a response. Well, not officially. We’ve all been notified now that the executive order is a dead letter.

Second: How many have heard about the administration’s crusade to convince the nation of Kenya [home of Obama’s family on his father’s side] to ratify a pro-abortion, pro-Sharia law constitution? The Sharia law part would divide Kenyan society in half legally; the abortion part is self-explanatory. Vice President Biden visited Kenya last month, pushing for it. That’s bad enough, but to make it even worse, American taxpayers are paying for this to the tune of more than $600,000. Some of that money went to the Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance. Is this really how you want your tax money spent?

This relates back to another of those non-news news stories from before the 2008 election: how Obama went to Kenya to campaign on behalf of the radical socialist candidate in its presidential election. Don’t remember that? I’m not surprised.

Third:  This one is non-news news for another non-news news story. Sometimes they pile on top of each other. When the NASA administrator announced that one of NASA’s priorities was to develop relations with the Muslim world and make them feel better about themselves, the administration said he had been given no such mandate—another example of an inconvenient individual being symbolically thrown under the bus, which happens often with Obama. Well, a congressman has come forward with testimony affirming what the NASA director said. Rep. Pete Olson, ranking Republican on the committee that oversees NASA, says that administrator Bolden told him last month that he definitely had a directive from the White House to be an arm of outreach to Muslims.

Maybe instead of being thrown under the bus, Bolden was thrown under the Space Shuttle—an inventive twist on an old policy.

Fourth: Donald Berwick, the man assigned to direct Medicare and Medicaid [placed there by recess appointment without the approval of Congress], who advocates healthcare rationing and who loves the British healthcare system, apparently doesn’t have to worry about his healthcare. The board of directors for the Institute for Health Care Improvement has given Mr. Berwick lifetime coverage. Mr. Berwick started the organization and serves as its chief executive officer. Nice to know he won’t have to enter the same system that he loves so much.

Now you’re caught up on some of the news that the media has declared non-news. Why does anyone with any sense continue to watch the major news networks [besides Fox, that is]?