Archive for the ‘Abortion and Adoption’ Category

Whose baby is it?

November 27, 2016

Whose body is it? DNA says the baby in the womb is not the mother. Using semantics references and dictionary definitions do not provide escape from the reality.

I make no claim over the mother’s body or property. The baby postpartum is just as helplessly dependent.

An illustration of the logical  problem of semantics. An expectant mother calls her baby as “baby”, the Planned Barrenhood saleswoman calls it “the mother’s body”.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I am totally against any neighborhood  abortion watch doing forced pregnancy tests to prevent abortions.

But the right of pro-lifers to share the facts that Planned Barrenhood and other beneficiaries of the prenatal infanticide industry hide, and to share their perspective to expecting mothers. Like how many parents are on the waiting lists to adapt.

And to promote works like Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help mothers through to birth and early motherhood.

It’s easier for Christians to see through the language manipulation, but there are a great many atheists too who are horrified by induced abortions, especially the brutal procedures of late-term prenatal infanticide.

The ZEDE’s in Honduras march on, at turtle’s pace

August 20, 2016

Some leftist mouths say that the new economic zones in Honduras are a loss of sovereignty. They lie, and they fool some less knowledgeable followers. They lie because they know that this was a creation of the elected representatives of the Honduran people.

They also lie because they are the ones who pushed -and still push- for a Soros-Chavez figurehead and for subjugation to international and globalist masters.

What a bunch of hooey. My wife is from Honduras. We cheered when they right announced this ZEDE effort.

Hondurans did a LOT of research on how other countries went from abject poverty to wealthy, and got the right people in charge of studying and planning. This whole plan is a HONDURAN SOVEREIGN DECISION. Those renegade judges had their own reasons for blocking the first initiative. Who knows, maybe Venezuela offered the judges the same money they had offered to Micheletti to resign and let the Chavez surrogate back in power, $3 million. They were grabbing more power than the Constitution allowed and so the impeachment was in order.

Zelaya was a renegade “elected” president (scare quotes are intentional) who was issuing his own decrees instead of publishing Congress’ legislation as required, he enforced his own project to make his auto-coup “official” instead of the law, and robbed millions.

The government’s own “fiscal general” (Attorney General) sought the warrant to arrest him for these crimes against the law, against the people, and the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya’s arrest. He was photographed escorted from the Palace fully suited up. That theater he pulled in Costa Rica, changing into pajamas for the Press, was somebody’s idea of PR. “Prison or resign and exile, Mr. President?” Mr. Piti-Chavez: “Okay, exile”.

Now comes a chance for Honduras to set up zones that treat investors (including Hondurans) decently, something Hondurans rejoiced to hear about. Complaints against the corruption in politics there and the crime and all ring very hollow when compared to the plans that the Honduran Congress itself overwhelmingly voted for (twice, because that’s a requirement for constitutional amendments).

As an anarcho-capitalist myself, there are elements I don’t like about some of the ways it’s implemented and applied.

But this project is WAY MUCH better than what they’ve got. Even as slow as it’s going. Leftists like George Soros the billionaire would prefer Honduras stay in the muck and mire so he can import more Hondurans into the US, free room and board and medical care promised to them, to disrupt the freedom-oriented American culture he so despises.

Too many babies, or too many thieves and vipers?

September 20, 2015

I never said that anybody who said there was “overpopulation” was a Malthus or a Sanger. But they use the same argument as Margaret Sanger did about poor people. The main difference is they are not creating an organization like she did whose purpose is to eliminate as many “unfit” and poor people as possible, and by the way, eugenically determined bad racial stock (according to her and her fellow arrogant elites).

I do agree that #1, I would advise people not to have more kids than they would be able to support adequately, but I will not be so arrogant as to presume that my opinion on the matter counts more than theirs. If you don’t have the faith for it, don’t have them, use contraception or abstention. #2 There are too many families that have to live too scarcely in the world.

But item #2 has a cause, and the cause is NOT because the poor are obeying the first Biblical commandment that God gave mankind.

It’s because there are too many thieves and vipers in central banks who use their network of friends and secret societies to execute their plots against the rest of us and rob the nations with their sneaky tactics. The tactics are ever more transparent now with some corners of the Internet still free for information interchange.

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. – Luke 8:17

So why agree with these liars and deceivers, when in reality, it is the political class, the arrogant class, the robber cliques, the deceivers, that are the cause? And there is a streak of paganism here, because it is a camel’s nose, and the camel is the infant sacrifices made in old times to the gods of Mammon, Molech, and Baal. This is one reason the command government is pushing so hard for contraceptives that serve also as abortifacients.

By the way, that was the hidden back story of the Hobby Lobby case. They did not object to paying for contraception, actually. Obamacare listed all the FDA approved “contraceptives”. Hobby Lobby had already provided coverage for 16 different contraceptives, including the “birth control pill”. They objected to the other ones that are abortifacients, according to the only possible scientific and objective definition of a new human being, that being the genome in the chromosomes of the zygote. That’s another term for what God showed David in Psalm 138, “God’s book” as it is called there.

The lie of “overpopulation” and “too many babies” comes from the Father of Lies, after all, because he is right now “seeking whom he may devour”, because he “knoweth he hath but a short time” left before Jesus comes back and slays his Beast with the Sword that cometh from the mouth of the Lion of Judah himself and puts Lucifer in chains.

He hates people, it’s not “overpopulation” [sic] he hates, it’s anybody who is born, including his Satan worshippers, Luciferians, and other spiritually useful idiots as he regards them, like he manipulated Eve.

Because every single human being that is born has the potential to be a saved soul. And Satan demands human sacrifice.

Is it human, or isn’t it?!

May 11, 2014

This is my reaction to a Reason article defending “guilt-free” voluntary abortion:

“We understand that a fetus at, say, 10 weeks is very different than one at 20 or 30 weeks”

What we “understand” is that a fetus that you can look at of 20 or 30 weeks looks a lot more human.

But if you go frame by frame backwards from 20 weeks in 24 hour intervals, it’s not only NOT “very different”, it’s very much the SAME. The *reason” being, that it IS the same creature there, the same human creature.

Is a caterpillar not the earlier stage of a butterfly??

Here in the days of “Reason”, when people who think themselves “reasonable”, have no trouble imagining that eukaryotes and prokaryotes, in their own mature “adult” stages, are their own ancestors, it is most laughingly unreasonable to reject thinking of the youngest of human creatures as if they are only what, wait, part of the mother’s own body??#@!! This is “reason”?

Take a DNA sample from the little pre-tyke. Only HALF that DNA came from the mother, and HALF from the father, and I’ll bet you donuts to dollars that the resulting epigenetics will express the inherited motherly genes differently than in the mother’s body.

Hell’s bells, with much frequency, we know that on occasion the baby’s blood and the mother’s blood are even *different types*!

How is that the same “body”? It’s one body inside another.

I saw one comment by a self-professed witch who was at least more honest in the acknowledgement that it was a little human, but justified killing it by calling it a parasite.

Shame on libertarians who are NOT Nazis in general but who do the same thing in an arbitrary situation, and simply say it’s okay to kill a certain class of human being because it’s not a human being.

As much as pro-abortion defenders want to convince themselves, there’s a reason mothers feel guilty when they let their fathers and their boyfriends hustle them into doing what the maternal instinct screams out at them is wrong.

You don’t have to be a Christian to oppose prenatal infanticide. In fact, most of the time I’ve heard Christians talking about it even on the Establishment Christianity media (whom are mostly despicable in their neo-con opinions), the arguments are secular in nature:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9546.htm
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/members.html

It’s just a little easier to see clearly on some issues for somebody who really believes in a just God that will require a little bit of TRUE reasoning, some good *logical* reasoning for their ethical choices.

As to guilt, Christ offers the *only* guilt-free answer to post-abortion syndrome. After all, he said, “I came not to condemn the world”, and there is also Isaiah 1:18:

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

 

 

“Reproductive rights” — Orwellian Newspeak — because it’s about the BABY

October 26, 2013
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a "King o...

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a “King of abortion”, would later be an active member of a pro-life organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This goes out in reaction to Tibor Machan‘s opinions as expressed in the following link:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/34690/Tibor-Machan-Communitarianism-and-Reproductive-Rights/

I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.

How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.

So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)

CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…

That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.

Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.

The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.

An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.

The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.

We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.

In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.

This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.

You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.

So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.

Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.

But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

www.silentnomoreawareness.org/‎

Atheism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Christianity, Respect for Life

August 11, 2013

I used to be an atheist as a young collegiate, but determined to keep an open mind to find the truth whatever it was, I followed science, history, and logic to discover that the Bible was true. For that reason, I am strongly against any coercion of believers.

Believing on Christ is not necessary for living peacefully with your neighbors but it helps you do so if you really believe you will have to answer in this life and the next to a God of love that requires it.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

But an atheist can follow the laws of love better than a Christian in some cases. It’s easier for them if:

#1 They are raised in a culture with a post-Christian legacy from prior generations of respect for the neighbor (noise about the “bad” old days are greatly exaggerated)

#2 They are not raised in a pagan culture like pre-Christian cultures (Even Charles Darwin rebuked an anti-Christian comment in a British paper, explaining how ALL world travelers having to drop anchor off a remote Pacific island felt relief if they saw a steeple of a Christian church. “Whew! We won’t BE dinner tonight”.)

#3 They were NOT raised under an oppressive dictatorship of official atheist government and without clandestine Christian influence. A former fellow employee of mine had helped the Ukraine transition to more of a free market economy. The Russian mafia was much more ruthless than the gangs from other places because they were trained in godless atheism.

Now with the decline of Christianity and the other monotheistic beliefs in the West we already see a decline in the respect for earthly life. Christians are more likely to be pro-life not because of their “religion” directly, but because the philosophy of respect for life is external to their own determinations. It’s much harder to commit prenatal infanticide if you know you are accountable to a real God, it’s easier if you can make up what’s good in your own eyes. When you already believe in a real God you can’t see with your eyes but you know he exists the same way you know that the invisible wind is something real, then it’s harder to claim a baby that looks the same outside and inside the womb is not a baby if you can’t see it, or it’s not breathing.

If you love someone, you don’t always do what they ask for so they’ll feel better about themselves. Proverbs 27:6 says ” Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” The foremost champions of aiding self-euthanasia, assisted suicide, they know it is no help to the victim. Anybody who is sick, if you love them you will seek to build their morale, you won’t affirm their desires to die. When I was a teen I told my uncle I wanted to die and he encouraged me. Later on he tried it himself, but failed, and shortly after that he married a very good lady that loved him and raised children with him, including a beautiful daughter.

The main problem in at least the majority of cases is the interference of government in such highly personal decisions. I don’t want my family to spend millions or even tens of thousands on me if I get to need such huge treatment just to stay alive, but err on the side of life, always. If the government does not pay for such treatments there would be fewer chances for controversy. I do not have the right to take your money, even if it’s tax money, even if it’s deceitful fiat currency, for my million-dollar treatment.

But actively causing my own death? Don’t think so. Actively assisting my wife to die. No way Jose!

But these are only examples of where the rubber meets the road, and where a post-Christian society starts breaking down into a society that has less respect for life.

“Death with dignity” or “Useless Eaters”? Power and paternalism says “Go ahead and die!”

May 27, 2013

The title to the article found at the following link is a propaganda piece itself and a tendentious accusation, and the author is not stupid. She KNOWS that it is not true, because without even checking other articles, we know that she accuses pro-lifers of religious motivation. I don’t know, maybe she switches personalities depending on the issue. Her title: “Assisted dying isn’t contested on religious grounds – it’s about power, paternalism and control”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/assisted-dying-isnt-contested-religious-grounds-its-about-power-paternalism-and-con

On that site, they claim that the lay people of almost all religious self-identifying persuasions favor “assisted suicide”, and they point out that the clergy and other leaders oppose. They love to use a majority opinion when it suits their purpose, while saying a judge is “legally” correct in pointing out that a poll majority is no basis for law, they immediately contradict the concession by making it still sound like an elite imposition on the majority.

Polls have lost credibility a long, long time ago. Especially for making any argument for anything. I have been polled myself. The wording of the question, asking leading “questions” to change the mind of the respondent. They inflicted the same question upon me in three different ways in that poll. The “surveyor” only stopped because I stopped the questioning. They assured me my answers would count anyway.

Did they count my responses in their “results”? I’ll never know, and neither will you. The results of that poll were publicized in the obvious direction the pollsters were supposed to evoke, but they are usually useless. They certainly are real arguments for nothing at all. “Approval ratings” are also bogus, believable only when there isn’t too much at stake. Not only useless, they are in essence frauds meant to play with the public mind. Propaganda tools.

I do not have a big clergy salary or position, work as easily reporting to woman bosses as to men bosses, I hate control as a mostly anarcho-capitalist  libertarian, and I don’t think anybody should have cultural sanction to kill another person. That’s finality in the control category, killing somebody, and that’s exactly the problem that inflicts so many PATHOLOGICAL killers. No emotion at killing somebody.

Now we have advocates of “mercy” killing.  They do not deny their emotions, but here comes the “for your own good” rationale beating down on common sense.

Oh, but that stage is maybe to follow. The powers that be that are pushing this theme are not yet going to admit that their real goal is the elimination of what Hitler called “useless eaters”. For now it’s a “compassionate” [sic] concern for the desires of the suffering.

For now, they say they only want to “help” those who are of “sound mind” who want to go. Presumably who also suffer from terminal disease. That’s their main argument anyway.

Kid you not. “Help them” die instead of talking them out of suicide. Hello? Rational logic calling! Come back!

In this “Brave New World” drowning in drugs and the commercialization of pleasure and hedonist philosophies, instead of improving techniques for improving the lives of the suffering, they want you to think of just letting them die. What a psych trick to say “Death with dignity” rather than a “poor quality of life”. There is no “dignity” in either killing yourself, and there is a lot less dignity in helping someone you say you love to kill themselves. Or instead of talking them out of it, nod your head, knowing that it is your partner’s pride that does not want to be dependent for life.

The compassionate thing is to make them know that their lives are important to you, making them know that they are more useful to you alive than dead.

(Meantime, many of the same powers that be advocate dependency on strangers from government for the poor).

Not the new twist in the psych of that title. They added a new Doublespeak to the Newspeak dictionary, calling it “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide”. Suicide has a bad name. Suicide is a bad name. That’s because suicide is a very bad thing.

If you kill somebody else, it’s called murder. If you kill yourself instead, that’s called suicide. To some people that makes all the difference. But it is still somebody killing somebody. If it’s bad to kill somebody, it’s bad to encourage them or help them kill themselves.

But in the real world of rational discussion, the thing that makes it bad for somebody to be killed at the hand of another, is just as tragic a death if somebody is killed at their own hand.

The worst aspect of this is the degenerate drop of moral pretense here. While arguing in moral terms, the Powers That Be that want this expose themselves in that they show that they care not about life over death. They have other plans for you.

This is Pandora’s box. Their game is over, their gig is up, it’s going to start winding down. There will be some blowback from the Powers That Be that want to hold the power of life and death over the rest of us. People are beginning to wake up to their oppression, in spite of their tendency to hide in the shadows and behind secret societies, old boys’ networks and the like.

This paternalistic ruling clique wants us to believe that we the people have demanded the “right” to kill ourselves and get a doctor to turn upside down help us die instead of help us live. But there is a twist to this, just like with a “woman’s right to choose”. With a “woman’s right to choose”, it really becomes an invitation for a man’s “right to choose”.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding motherhood (so they’ve been told). But nature tells them in the back of the mind and in the region of the heart that having a baby in the womb makes them a mother. The desire is there and the “Silent No More” movement of women who publicly confess and denounce their own abortions is a demonstration of this, along with the fact shown in surveys of the symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.

In one pro-abortion movie, in fact, it made light humor of one young girl bragging that she had told FIVE different guys that it was their baby so she could get the money not only for the abortion but a trip to Hawaii. Real funny.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding babyhood (so they’ve been told). But surveys have shown that in the majority of cases, the women “choosing” abortion did it under pressure of a father, a mother, an uncle, or the boyfriend.

So it is a lie that abortion is simply a “choice” for women. It has made them more vulnerable to the demands of men, in fact. It has added pressure for them to approach sexuality in the same way as men. The long-term blowback is felt by the older feminists who yearn for motherhood. Connie Chung is one of the most famous of these, not exactly a “feminist”, but one who bought into the myth that a woman could have a fulfilling career same as a man without the naggings of motherhood. Too late, she sought motherhood. It is not paternalistic to understand this.

Denying your nature, denying who you are, denying the physical and natural testimony of your physiology, this is not a simple matter of “choice” or “law” or “decree”.

There is one more road to hell here, whether you want to think it’s paved with good intentions or not.

In a moral society, we expect doctors to heal us when we’re sick, alleviate our pain, and help us avoid death as much as possible. Doctors enter the profession with this orientation in mind. Part of the horrors of the Axis powers during World War II was the turning of this on its head. Medical knowledge was applied to death instead.

To legalize this will end the universal expectation of doctors. Some have already been indoctrinated by the fact of death in the baby-killing business, as in the Gosnell case in Philadelphia. Not even playing the race card saved him from the horrified reaction even from the partial-birth abortion advocates. Unsaid in the coverage was the fact that now President Obama uttered one of his few voiced opinions in the Illinois State Senate against strengthening the penalties for the kind of things that Gosnell did as a matter of course.

May God save us from this pro-death propaganda. That’s what it is.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

 

 

“lfl”: Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.

May 19, 2013
8 weeks old baby

8 weeks old baby (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Christian Science Monitor:
http://tinyurl.com/bymvc99

Could Ariel Castro be tried for murder? Case would be unprecedented.
Aggravated murder charges likely will be sought against Ariel Castro, a prosecutor said. Experts say it is unprecedented to sentence someone to death for killing a fetus in a case in which the mother survives.

Establishing legal personhood of those five babies would most importantly benefit the unborn children themselves.

Some of the liberty-minded have a problem thinking out whether the mother (or father) has an obligation to the child. I say there is no such quandary.

One bedrock principle for libertarians is demanding personal responsibility for one’s own actions. Leave me alone, don’t rob my neighbor to rescue me from the results of my decisions.

A baby is a result of a conscious action by two people, the father and the mother. The only exception is the case of a rape. But where two people have sex, even people with major brain limitations know that babies can “happen” from sex. If a new human life is conceived, you did it, it’s yours, you take care of it. Yes, you DO owe it to that baby. The baby had no say in the contract, it’s an “imposition” on the baby if it is an “imposition” on anybody. It’s an implicit contract made all the more “enforceable” under libertarian principles because of the fact that life is the first requirement for life, liberty, and ownership.

Found at lewrockwell.com and elsewhere, news and commentary roundup

May 19, 2013

It should be no secret to the people that read this blog regularly, but http://lewrockwell.com is an almost daily stop for me, with new insights and revelations from behind the scenes about current events, from an independent liberty-minded thinker’s perspective:

I may or may not own a gun, but for those who do, or who are considering:

Mini/Pocket 9mm Pistols for Concealed Carry:
http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/mini-9mm-concealed-carry.html

Real Men Wear Red: Sportsmen Who Choose To Wear the Colour Are More Likely To Be Winners Because They Are ‘Dressing To Kill’:
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/real-men-wear-red.html

Evidence for Confiscation: 5 Examples That Show the Threat Is Real by S.H. Blannelberry:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/blannelberry11.1.html

There was a news conference by the targets of the IRS witch-hunt. Make no mistake that’s what it was. It’s not just the keyword searches for putting the applications behind the rest of them. There were some that were not from any “tea party” or “patriot” names, but “American Grizzlies”? And how about that keyword “constitution”? Are neutral officials –ahem, “neutral”– somehow allergic to the United States Constitution? How about the groups with the name “Christian” in them?

The story of Gary Johnston, a retired police officer from Kingston, Tenn., seemed to typify the abuse suffered by many rank-and-file tea party members at the hands of the IRS.

Johnston told WND he put together a small tea party group in 2009 and had no plans to file for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization. But the IRS told him he had to do it. So, he first filled out a 19 page questionnaire in March of 2010. In August, the IRS sent him another form with 22 more questions, and embedded within those were another 60 questions.

“A lot of the questions struck me as strange,” Johnston said.

“Intrusive, terrible questions. They wanted to know any and every email that’s ever come to us or sent by us, personal or private, that might be construed to be political. They wanted to know everybody that was coming to our meetings, if we charged money, who donated, what the donations were. They wanted to know everything about our personal lives and our families’ personal lives — anyone in our family that might be politically connected.”

What sort of personal information did the IRS want to know?

“They wanted to know who we were affiliated with, what we did, what we aspired to do, what positions we might run for politically. They were asking questions that you could not answer, but could trap you.”

Did they ask you anything about reading material?

“Oh, yes, they asked any and all literature that you’ve ever had disseminated or had sent to you; anything that’s ever been written about you; anything you’ve ever written on a blog or to a newspaper. They asked me for outlines of what I’ve been reading, you could call that a book report. They asked what we were really trying to accomplish. It went on and on and on.”

After 70 days of filling out all sorts of intrusive documents, Johnston finally consulted a CPA and tax attorney. He said the attorney took one look at the material and said, “What did you do to upset the IRS? You’ve made somebody angry. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. 80 percent of this is illegal. They can’t ask you this stuff.”

She advised Johnston not to respond to many of the questions and not provide the IRS with much of the material it had requested. The IRS then sent him a form with another 40 questions, including some of the same questions he had refused to answer earlier.

Then Johnston’s group started getting “a lot of calls from the IRS.”

“These IRS agents who were calling us were apologetic. They were saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry. … I’m with you guys, I have to do this. This is part of my job.’”

Johnston said their bosses, at the Cincinnati office, “were telling them they have to do this.”

The witch hunt was executed by the IRS against the targeted groups. Why did they think they could get away with this?

And that’s not all. Look at the way the IRS treated Dr. James Dobson‘s application for Family Talk:

“Ms. Medley did not call back until March 19. Family Talk Action’s attorney asked her when the IRS would issue its determination letter. Ms. Medley responded saying, I don’t think your Form 1024 (application for exemption) will be granted because Family Talk Action is ‘not educational’ because it does not present all views. She continued, saying that Family Talk Action sounded like a ‘partisan right-wing group’ because, according to Ms. Medley, it only presents conservative viewpoints. She then added, ‘you’re political’ because you ‘criticized President Obama, who was a candidate.’” [Ed: So WHAT
if it presented issues from their point of view? They all
do, and the IRS has routinely approved the left-wing
groups over the years with much worse bias!]

The organization said it had submitted sample radio programs after the IRS had demanded them, although none was aired during an election year.

“It was the opinion of Family Talk Action’s legal counsel that these samples were not only 501(c)(4) qualified but 501(c)(3) qualified,” the statement said.

“Family Talk Action’s legal counsel had never heard an IRS agent express biased statements like those he heard during the March 19 call. He also felt that the this agent did not understand the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities,” the report said.

Not educational because it “doesn’t present all views”? Oh yeah? How about all the multitude of 501c4 AND 501(c)(3) entities it routinely approves that only present leftist and anti-Christian views, like Media Matters and others?

Oh, and what did the Big “O” say he’s going to do about it? He’s going to put a stop to this because it’s important that Americans “understand and believe that the IRS” is fair. Oh yeah, except this episode shows it’s NOT fair. How about it’s important to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution?

So who is he going to put in jail over this for abuse of power? Anybody?

Look, does the Socialist Workers Party get the third degree grilling, send us all of your emails you ever got or sent? What an uproar that would be right? How about from the unions?

It’s not a “small cadre” of a couple of “rogue agents”. It looks like it was ALL the conservative groups that had any of those “suspicious” keywords in their names!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/lawmakers-demand-jailtime-for-irs-scandal/

According to Fox News, an internal timeline by the inspector general’s office revealed the IRS began looking at tea party and “patriot” groups as early as 2010, shortly after Obamacare was passed.

However, in 2011 the organizations scrutinized were expanded to include groups focused on government debt and spending, taxes and education on “ways to make America a better place to live” as well as those who criticized “how the country is being run.”

In early 2012, the IRS expanded the list even further to include groups that were educating people on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and involved in limiting/expanding government.

Gardner told WND that among the multiple conservative groups targeted by the IRS was at least one group from Colorado.

The group, which is asking that its name be kept private for now, applied for 501(c)(4) status and had its application illegally released to the public during the application process, which is a clear violation of federal law.

“The information on their application was confidential and the IRS was required by law to treat it as such, yet that information was leaked to ProPublica,” Gardner said. “Who’s to say the IRS didn’t give out confidential donor information either? This confirms people’s worst beliefs about government overbearance.”

They’re demanding health records from medical organizations, too:

Yeah, just apologize and that’s it? We put a muzzle on the voices of tens of thousands of Americans, and tilted the election to an administration that expands the Patriot Act, confiscates two months of emails and reports from a press organization (a leftist one even!) to catch a whistleblower supposedly, tells the man in charge in Tripoli second to the late Ambassador he’d better muzzle himself instead of testify to events, covers up the truth about events that left four people to die in an attack that could have been avoided. And refuses to give up the prerogative (it’s not a “right”) to kill any American the President fingers as a threat. And under whom even the Pentagon is now claiming the power to kill Americans and control them under certain conditions.

And nobody goes to jail? Watergate was a LOT less than all this, and people went to prison. Hello?

And Holder, after treating the Congress with such contempt and stonewalling on Fast and Furious, and to this day refusing to release relevant documents, and even bald-faced punishing the whistleblowers of Fast and Furious, he rebukes Congress for incivility and lack of respect?!
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/hot-tempered-holder-lashes-out-in-defiance/

And yet another one:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/irs-rejected-group-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/?cat_orig=politics

(BREITBART) The IRS scandal of targeting tea party or conservative organizations grew deeper Wednesday with the revelation that the agency denied tax-exempt status to a pro-life organization because of its hypothetical opposition of Planned Parenthood.

The Thomas Moore Society, a public interest law firm announced that one of their clients was told that their approval as a non-profit was conditioned on a commitment not to protest outside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

>>>>

Whattaya know, now they tell us there was a “suicide note” inside that boat in Boston? How convenient. All of a sudden they “found” an admissible “confession”? And how convenient that the “suspect”, umm, “shot himself” in the throat? Now he can’t yell something like “I’m a patsy!” like Lee Harvey Oswald did…

>>>>>

In another story, McClatchy newspapers are quoting ” two anonymous government officials”:

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

What American official in such a land would report in a “still secret memorandum” that he had security concerns, and then turn down military offers of more security? And then go to the city where other states had pulled completely out? Why would any official do that? This thing does NOT pass the “fishy smell” test:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZi_gIJnEZc

There is something else going on there. Presuming, just for the sake of argument, that it’s true, the big question is indeed WHY? The Embassy had just reported that they could NOT defend the compound in Benghazi, and they needed “additional security upgrades”.

Note, this is some anonymous somebody’s recollection of somebody else’s phone call. Stevens can no longer tell his side of that phone call, ey?

The next three paragraphs from the McClatchy report are interesting because they seem to be an example of “Does. Not. Compute.” Or maybe post-facto C. Y. A.:

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

But further on, this “report” seems to come back down to Earth:

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

Senator Lindsay Graham is not my favorite politician, being an advocate as he is for shredding the US Constitution. But note that the Embassy had made repeated security requests and were denied, not by the military brass, but by the State Department in Washington, D.C.

Maybe this is the military brass doing its own CYA “not my fault” public relations effort, true or not. I can believe it, of course. But there are more questions raised in this McClatchy report than answers.

(1) WHO GAVE THE ORDER to the military security team in Tripoli to stand down instead of moving to help defend the Americans under attack?

(2) WHO in the D.C. State Department hierarchy turned down the request for better security in Libya? How high did that decision go? How high does it usually go?

(3) AT THIS POINT, what difference does it make? (This has been answered but it’s good to keep it in mind).

(4) If the important thing is to make sure it doesn’t happen again, then why is the Administration trying to make sure the people they work for don’t even know what happened?

(5) It the important thing is to track down those responsible for this and administer appropriate measures on them, then why are those responsible –already even publicly identified– publicly walking around as free men, and the State Department knowing where they ar

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue S...

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

?

(6) The acting head of the diplomatic mission in Libya described the situation to the Secretary of State, we now know, finally from his own mouth to Congress. So WHY did Clinton, and Susan Rice (who reports to her), and don’t forget OBAMA himself, repeat so often that this was a spontaneous demonstration and blame a VIDEO?

(7) WHY IS SOMEBODY WHO MADE A VIDEO STILL IN PRISON? DID SOMEBODY SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION?

Which one is worse? Adam Lanza (body count 23) or Kermit Gosnell (HUNDREDS of babies)?

May 4, 2013
Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879)

Ethinic Cleanser Margaret Sanger, Face of Evil  (* 1879) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How many killing fields more are there across America?

This serial murderer has now been exposed to the entire nation, and there are media bosses who want to help deep-six this story.

This guy did stuff to live born babies that happen to be the same exact things that babies go through during partial-birth abortions.

God bless Pennsylvania for prosecuting him. God bless Fox News Channel for covering this atrocity that should shock every decent American.

“Babies treated worse than sick dogs”:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/29/jury-to-hear-closing-arguments-in-gosnell-murder-trial/

Of course the defense did not call any witnesses, because they would be cross-examined. They did not offer Gosnell as a witness, because the prosecutors could have easily shredded the racist card excuses for the multitude of evidence against him.

The argument that Gosnell’s defense lawyer used is a screaming testimony against the entire Establishment. He told the jury that this baby-killer was only picked on because he served poor people in a poor neighborhood.

The fact is, maybe he was ignored for 30 years(!) precisely because these were mostly poor black and minority babies who were being slaughtered! It used to be an outrage among the black liberation movement’s loudest spokesmen, that abortion targeted minorities. Margaret Sanger did not hide the fact when she founded the Birth Control League, now known as Planned Parenthood, that her main goal was to eliminate inferior types of humans, praising Hitler’s Eugenics program. That’s why they ditched the Birth Control name, because it was associated with Hitler and his baby-killing race purification program.

Here is the web site of Abby Johnson, who was once a clinic director and is now helping abortion center workers that want to escape the horrors:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/

Abby Johnson’s story parallels the biography of John Newton in one major way. John Newton was a slave ship captain that took newly captured slaves from the west coast of Africa to sell them in the markets of the Americas.

She is a living rebuke against pastors that refuse to speak out about the baby holocaust. God cares for those babies and they cry out against a nation’s shedding of innocent blood. Not just overseas.

“Deafening silence of our pulpits”:
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/20027

They’ve been silenced by the 501(c)3 chains that bind them and put them in fear of their IRS status. It’s so bad they have picked just ONE day out of the year to speak on matters that the prophets spoke of throughout the entire 66 books of the Bible! That’s the protest of some of them against the government muzzle. The last I heard about it, it was just a “whopping” four hundred.

Of course there are a lot of very outspoken Christian leaders that deserve lots of encouragement. During the last days, “They that understand among the people shall instruct many”. That’s because a growing number of Christians will realize that Tim LaHaye (“Left Behind”) did NOT know Bible prophecy as advertised, and many of the lost will come to find truth when they realize who was proclaiming the warnings all along of what was to come.

“Will the Church Please Stand Up?”
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/will-the-church-please-stand-up/

Abby is helping abortion center workers decompress:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/urgent-your-help-is-needed-2/

Now see what the CEO of United Airlines is involved in:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/urgent-your-help-is-needed-2/

Jeremiah 2:34 Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.

35 Yet thou sayest, Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me. Behold, I will plead with thee, because thou sayest, I have not sinned.

But to end on a more positive note, we know who does love all these little ones:

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

In three gospels is this:

Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.