A South Carolina Church is in deep trouble with the Arianna Nation for a sign it has posted outside its church doors which reads, “Ultimate Racism – Abortion Targets Black Babies”. This is not a laughter matter to the liberal pro-aborts over there who never miss an opportunity to condemn anyone for trying to stop an abortion, or speak out against it. But when we talk explicitly and candidly about abortion, what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn child – the folks that support the killing of unborn children under the guise of “reproductive choice” become indignant and restless. And that includes other blacks, as the Arianna Nation point out:
The sign was eventually taken down due to pressure from African-American leaders.
So – wouldn’t this problem of abortion go away much faster if only black babies were aborted, and Hispanic and Latino babies as well? And, couldn’t we learn a lot from the Chinese about abortion, and bring that knowledge to America, to every single black and Hispanic and Latino, and Asian, community in America, where that information is sorely welcome and encouraged by other blacks and Hispanics and Latinos?
It isn’t whites killing black babies in the womb. It’s black mothers making the conscious decision to kill their babies in the womb that ultimately leads to the killing of black babies in the womb. Or, if we wanted to take the pro-abort position, what is in that woman’s womb isn’t even a black child to begin with, so that helps to ease the conscience as the abortionist plunges their deadly sharp instrument of torture into her to remove whatever it is inside her womb she things she is better living without.
If that is not a black child inside the womb, then perhaps we can make the case that there is nothing racist with pro-aborts setting up abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and encouraging black women to have abortions, rather than give birth, because they are poor, single, unmarried women whose babies fathers have abandoned them. But, if that is a black child inside the womb, and Planned Parents is encouraging the woman to abort it – what are we supposed to call that? Isn’t that the message this church was trying to convey with its sign?
How successful was this year’s St. Valentines Day Unborn Baby Massacre? Well, liberals and Democrats are at it again, hoping to make another killing this Mother’s Day. Pro-abortion murderess, Kirstin Gillibrand, is urging women to donate money to Emily’s List, which is a pro-abortion organization that helps to elect other pro-abortion Democrat women to congress. Disguised as “reproductive freedom”, it’s really all about abortion to them. How? Birth control and contraception are legal, and nobody is going to take that away from women. We just aren’t going to pay for it for them. But a woman cannot have “reproductive freedom” in its truest sense, if she does not also have the ‘freedom” to have an abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn child. Although liberals and Democrats are proud to be, and to label themselves as “pro-choice”, most of them are extremely ashamed when they are challenged on just what abortion is. No convinced? Challenge Kirstin Gillibrand on what abortion is and see what her response it; see her fluster; see her evade the question; see her backtrack; see her inject non-sequitors and other useless information into her response. That is the epitome of liberalism. Liberals deal strictly, religiously, in emotions. Not facts, not reality. The reality is – donating money to Emily’s List helps that organization provide campaign funding to pro-abortion Democrat women. There is no guarantee any pro-abortion Democrat women will win, of course. But if any of them do – there is good and strong indication all that money initially donated to Emily’s List, which was then dispersed and used to spread more awareness of, and about, their candidates of “choice” might have been a factor in their victories. This Mother’s Day, do you really want to celebrate the woman who gave birth to you by supporting a cause that works tirelessly to prevent, by killing them, future children from celebrating their mother’s on Mother’s day? Because these dead children will not have mothers, or fathers, to celebrate on any day of the year. And they won’t have birthday’s of their own to celebrate either. That is the legacy of abortion. over 50 million dead unborn children. That is the legacy of liberalism. What would have been the legacy of all those 50 million unborn children slaughtered in the womb?
There is only one simple reason reason why government – and by that it is to mean law – needs to push, insert and penetrate its way into a woman’s vagina. That is to protect unborn children from being killed by women who would rather not take the responsibility of carrying them to term and delivering them. Faux Republican women, in a new Funny or Die Video featuring “actress Kate Beckinsale, Judy Greer and Andrea Savage “spread” the message that the one thing women really want in their vagina is the government.” This video is merely an unthoughtful diversionary tactic, a non-sequitor and a blatant lie. Would anyone challenge these actresses on why they support the killing of unborn children? Would these actresses ever admit they do support the killing of unborn children? Because they do, although they don’t come out and say it. Isn’t that an act of shallow cowardice? Millions of unborn children have been killed through abortion because of women like the actresses in this unfunny video that will leave many more unborn children dying in abortion clinic rooms until we not only do more to “get into their vaginas” but get in their faces as well and demand to know how they can support the killing of unborn children, and what value, what merit that actually has to society, and to the women having the abortions. Or – is killing an unborn child “funny” to women like Kate Beckinsale?
If a Chinese activist was ever apprehended in China for promoting women’s “right’s” or any such nonsensical liberal causes, liberals would naturally be up in arms and demand Obama, or whoever was President take extreme action against China, wouldn’t you think? But what are liberals supposed to do with Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng, who, up until the time he escaped, was being held prisoner against his will in his own home by the Chinese government. The liberal dilemma? Chen is no mere, no ordinary champion of human rights. And he is certainly not the type of human rights champion liberals ever support. In fact, liberals despise champions like Chen on a daily basis, calling these type of champions anti-woman. You see, the kind of activism and human rights campaign Chen had been arrested by the Chinese government for was for his involvement in trying to stop his own government into forcing women to undergo forced sterilization and forced abortions. (All party of their one-child per family law that liberals support because it is also population control) So you can see how this puts liberals in a very serious quandary. Chen was trying to stop abortions from happening. How does that look on a liberal’s resume’ should he or she show any support, or have any compassion, for anyone who tried to stop the killing of unborn children? And how do liberal’s react to this news; and how do they want U.S. government to handle this very delicate situation? (Delicate only to liberals, because on the one hand Chen is a human rights activist, but on the other hand he is advocating for a position in the absolute contrary to what liberals support themselves.) Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. propagandist, Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) says:
“Our instincts are to cheer him on and use this case to dramatize the flagrant human rights abuses that occur in modern China. We expect our government to take a vigorous stand against the Chinese Communist Party. However, we must not sensationalize this affair. If Chen’s saga devolves into an “us versus them” clash of hegemonic resolve, it will affect America’s relationship with China for years to come.”
No, indeed, do not “sensationalize this affair”. Because to do so would endanger liberals in America, and put them squarely at odds with their militant pro-abortion stance and their militant pro-abortion agenda here in America. Chen is all but throwing the noose around the necks of liberals, tightening, squeezing the rope and hanging liberals with their own hypocrisy. He has completely put liberal hypocrites, like Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) in serious panic mode, and increased their stress level a thousand fold. Liberals, because of who they are, must support Chen because he is a human rights activist, but they will not support him as vocally, as passionately, as outwardly as they would if Chen was fighting for gay rights in China, or for better wages and working conditions for Chinese workers. Liberal hypocrites will only put on a facade, feigning intrigue and concern for Chen, but really hoping Chen simply, mysteriously, vanishes so they, liberal hypocrites, like Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) don’t have to deal with this sticky and most awkward situation any longer. Because if liberals start supporting activists all the way over in China who advocate stopping abortions and sterilizations, what happens when the news of that support gusts into America and Planned Parenthood gets winds of it?
Or - if you don't let me kill my unborn child, you'll never have sex with me again! (Photo: Women.com)
A new strategy is being deployed in the so-called “war on women”, which liberals insist is a “war on a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception, but in which we really know is code for abortion rights, and the right of women to kill their unborn children. Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. Blogger, John Blumenthal, calls on all women who happen to be married to Republican men, or whose husband will vote Republican (and vote against Barack Obama) to stop having sex with them until they have a 180 degree change of heart and vote for Barack Obama, who is guaranteed to ensure the slaughter of unborn babies continues. Some campaign strategy! Is bowing to a woman’s “prerogative” to retain the right to kill an unborn child worth the price of “admission”? And – how exactly does that work if the wife is a Republican and the husband is a Democrat, like Mary Matalin and James Carville? Can anyone imagine Carville demanding Matalin support abortion or he won’t have sex with her?
No sex for/with Carville? Somehow I'm O.K. with that!
Blumenthal uses a non-sequitor in comparing abortion rights with a fictional play, Lysistrata, in which a woman withholds sex until the Peloponnesian War ends. So, Blumenthal, who is a liberal, after-all, compares a very real war on unborn children to that of a fictional telling of a real war? They say truth is stranger than fiction. In this case the “truth” that liberals want women to deny their husbands sex until they support abortion is just as strange as the fiction that the “war on women” really has anything to do with a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception.
Killing unborn children in the womb using federal tax dollars makes the Arianna Nation coo with delight. But a crisis pregnancy center that is using federal tax dollars to save unborn children from being killed in the womb angers and outrages, and mortifies, the very liberal, very pro-abortion, Arianna Nation. There may be, however slight, some legitimacy to this “concern”, for you see, this crisis center, The Life Center of Midland, TX, according to the article, demands all its volunteers be Christians, and prove they are by writing in the church they worship at and the name of their pastor for a reference in their application form. On their pdf. application form it does have a place with a “Church Reference”, but whether or not it is actually a prerequisite is dubious. The Life Center, in its mission statement, does acknowledge its core Christian beliefs, and all applicant, staff and volunteers, are expected to adhere to that statement. That The Life Center would make such demands, and receive federal tax dollars, is making liberals, and the Arianna Nation uncomfortable and queasy. On the other hand – does anyone really believe liberals would be less appalled with using federal tax dollars to prevent a child from being killed in the womb if The Life Center did not have any religious language in its mission statement or on its application form? Or, to put it another way, would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a pro-life atheist crisis pregnancy center was receiving federal tax dollars to save unborn babies from being aborted? And even more provocative – would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a very religious, but very pro-abortion, pregnancy crisis center was receiving federal tax dollars and directing women to abortion clinics to kill their unborn children?
NARAL – National Abortion Rights Action League – knows what a Mitt Romney win in 2012 will mean to abortion in America. The abortion rights group has studied the patterns of all fifty states with regards to abortion, both those states with pro-life leaning legislatures, and those states with pro-abortion leaning legislatures. Seventeen states have been identified by NARAL which would immediately seek to ban abortion in their states once Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Since a Romney win means an almost certain push to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and since NARAL knows conservative judges tend to be more strict Constitutionalists, and less activist, than liberals judges, any new appointment by a President Romney will be virtually guaranteed to support overturning the law that made abortion legal in America in 1973. Any attempt to undermine abortion in America, and what is perceived (although not actually) a guaranteed Constitutional right, will be fiercely fought by NARAL and all pro-abortion groups, who consider laws banning abortion, abortion procedures and funding for abortion to be a “war on women”. What we must keep in mind is that Obama will appoint liberal activist, pro-abortion, judges to the Supreme Court. He has done it twice so far, with Sonya Sotomayer and Elana Kagan. If elected to a second term, and given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court Justice, he will do it again. NARAL has identified seventeen states ready to ban abortion. A Romney win will bring those states that much closer to making that a reality. Unborn lives are at stake in this election, as in all elections. In this election, however, pro-life supporters have much to gain with a Romney win, and much to lose with an Obama win. Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, all unborn children have their lives to lose, if their mothers so choose. Romney winning the Presidency will set into motion the key events that will lead to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, allowing at least seventeen states to ban abortion. Isn’t that seventeen very good reasons why we need to vote for Mitt Romney for President?
Society Bytes will serve as an additional outlet for newsworthy stories of interest, to the author, along with The Neosecularist. The fundamental difference between the two will be that The Neosecularist will focus more on lead stories, longer and more developed. Society Bytes will be more in line with snippets, ... Continue reading →