Trump Looking Very Presidential

I have to be honest here folks.  I think I really, truly, honestly love Donald Trump.  I never in a million years thought I would ever say that, but it's true.  Every time I hear him speak now he says something that resonates with me; makes me feel proud.  I love him.

Look, I'm not endorsing him here. I just think he resonates with Americans like me.  There are things I've always wanted a presidential candidate to say, and Trump is the first to say them.  He is a man who speaks from his heart, and does't let political correctness scare him from the truth.  He's not going to let anyone walk all over him.  He is rich, and he doesn't apologize.  Instead he says things like, "I am rich, and I can make you rich too."

During the 2012 presidential cycle, you don't know how bad I wanted someone to say, "Obama is a socialist." No one ever did.  Not one candidate had the courage to speak the truth about Obama, and probably because they thought they'd be seen as racist attacking the first black presidential candidate.  So uninformed voters continued to think Obama was the solution to their problems.

I don't think we need to fear that Trump will hesitate calling Clinton a Socialist because she's a woman and it might be seen as offensive.  Nope!  Trump will call a spade a space, and that's what we need.

After the first debate where  Megyn Kelly tried to take out Trump, Trump did not disappoint his fans.  He responded with boldness and courage, and he did not apologize.  And, despite what the media thought, his poll numbers did not decline: they went up.

I think Rush Limbaugh hit the nail on the head when he defined it this way:

(Trump is) walking in uncharted territory... this stuff that he's doing, nobody's seen. In its own way, it's refreshing...  There's a percentage of the population that is totally fed up with the political class, including the media. And they have wanted things said to people and about people for the people they've been voting for for years and they haven't heard it. I mean, the media is not loved. The media in some cases is despised, and Trump is giving it right back to 'em in ways that many people in this country have dreamed of happening. And, as such, he comes off as refreshing.

Even when he's not on message or when he's not on issues, he comes across as somebody that says things they would like to say, things they have wanted to say, things they have hoped other people would say.  Cause, frankly, I'm gonna tell you, again: I don't think that a lot of these big players, including in the media, have any idea who their audiences are. Particularly the Drive-Bys. I don't think they have the slightest idea the size of and the amount of real anger out there directed at them. It goes so far beyond the fact that they're biased. It's way beyond that now. And Trump is the only guy addressing it, whether he's talking about issues or them...

There is real visceral anger over this amnesty BS. There is real visceral anger over what's been done for the economy. There is real visceral anger over what is being done to the health care system via Obamacare. The reason they don't know it is because they (the media) do not care to talk to the people who feel that way, so they never do features on them. They never go out and do man-on-the-street interviews with people like that.

Because they are interested in furthering the agenda that has made all of this happen. Now, they know there are gonna be some people that disagree with it, but they immediately relegate them to insignificant status. They're either bitter clingers or they're lunkheads or they're small in number or they're just old-fashioned ditties that don't deal well with change or what have you. But they're missing the real anger, and it's been 

The anger, you can see it in the midterm 2010, 2014 elections. There have been people have shown up in droves. The Democrats have lost over a thousand seats in those midterm elections, and part of those elections were Republicans being elected because the people voting for them wanted them to stop all of this, or at least try. And they don't see any trying to stop it. They don't see any effort being made, any serious effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

I think there's some real outrage in this country over what has been learned, was always suspected but now what has been confirmed was going on in those abortion clinics. There's real anger out there. And the one person that's come along that's tapped into it and that gives everybody the impression that he's fully aware of it and agrees with them is Donald Trump. As such, he's got a pretty wide berth here. He's got a pretty big margin of error.

You see, the media wants politicians, and anyone, to admit when they made mistakes. And Trump does not fall for it.  He does not apologize.  He will not apologize because he is rich.  Quite the contrary: he reminds people that he is rich and that they too can get rich.  If you apologize that changes the whole narrative, and that's why the media loves apologies and Trump refused to give one.

He will not apologize for calling out raving lunatic leftists for what they are: raging, lunatic leftists.  He is not going to apologize for calling out Rosie O'Donnell for being a raging, lunatic leftist.  He will not apologize for the fact he is rich.  He will not, as Obama does on a daily basis, apologize for America being great.

Besides, apologizing does not change the fact that you said what you said.  If you apologize, then you are saying you screwed up.  For instance, if you are apologizing for America, you are saying that America isn't truly great; it's not truly exceptional: and it is great; it is exceptional.

Look, Trump is not afraid to speak the truth.  He does not care what people think.  He understands the truth hurts before it makes you better.  He understands all this.  And, the best thing about trump, is that you don't have to worry about some media personality embarrassing him.  You don't have to worry that he won't have a good response: because he is a great speaker; a great at articulating thoughts, opinions and facts.

For example, regarding Lindsey Graham he said: "Lindsey Graham, a total lightweight. Here's a guy in the private sector he couldn't get a job, believe me. Couldn't get a job! He couldn't do what you people did. You're all retired as hell and rich, okay? He wouldn't be rich. He'd be poor. And then I watch this idiot Lindsey Graham on television today, and he calls me a jackass! (imitating Graham) "He's a jackass."

For example, regarding Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton he said:

"Bush said my tone is not nice. My tone. I said, 'No, we need tone. We need enthusiasm. We need tone!' It's true. But they said -- and actually Hillary Clinton said (imitating Clinton), "I don't like his tone." We have people having their heads cut off, Christians in the Middle East! We have people that are being dumped in cages and drowned, in the Middle East."

Trump has a great point.  Here we are all concerned about the Confederate flag offending people. We are concerned about words spoken by politicians.  We are concerned about apologies.  And yet we have terrorist dictator thugs out there cutting heads off of people who don't agree with them philosophically and religiously.

The point here is that anyone who tosses criticism at Trump, Trump is going to stand his ground, defend his territory, defend what he has said, defend his position, defend his opinions, and he will fight back. He will fight back.  As a conservative watching a debate, or listening to a speech, by Trump, I won't have to worry about him not being able to articulate.  There will be none of that type of fear if Trump is our candidate.

Yes! Trump is reading our minds. He is finally the man we have been yearning for for years to run for president.  A true man of the people.  A man who says, "I will rebuild our military. It will be so strong and so powerful and so great… that we’ll never have to use it. Nobody’s gonna mess with us.”

As Limbaugh said, "His personality is not to rise above it and ignore it. His personality is to deal with it head on and just send it right back at 'em."  Still, the best thing of all about Donald Trump, is: "It isn't an Act," said Limbaugh. "It's genuine!"  It's Donald Trump.

Further reading:

• Fox News:  Trump Delivers Remarks To Thousands At Alabama Rally
• Real Clear Politics: Trump to Megyn Kelly: "I don't have time for political correctness."
• Rush Limbaugh: Trump Resonates Because Millions of People Are Sick of Political Correctness, Phony Outrage and Phony Apologies
• Articulating Ideas: Trump: 'We don't have time for political correctness'

Trump: 'We Don't Have Time For Political Correctness'

The first debate of the 2016 presidential cycle was held on August 3, 2015, on Fox News.  Donald Trump was leading in the republican polls at the time, and so he had center stage.  To the dismay of many republicans, the Fox News debate moderators did their best to take trump down.  Trump responded as only Trump can, and instead of going down he stepped up.

Consider the following exchange with Megyn Kelly and Trump.

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account--

DONALD TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

TRUMP: I'm sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account (This was said to raging applause by the republicans in attendance) has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentimes it's fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn't do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.

Emphasis added by me.  And for saying this, the media figured Trump was going to tank in the polls.  But that didn't happen: he went up in the polls.  At the present time, as of August 22, 2015, Trump leads with 24% of the vote, with Jeb Bush in second with 13%, Ben Carson with 9%, and Marco Rubio with 8%.  

What the media failed to understand is that the people in the country are fed up with political correctness. Indeed, rather than angering voters with what he said, he inspired them. Trump was actually feeding into the anger in this nation.  In essence, what he was saying was exactly what voters wanted to hear. 

For this reason, his poll numbers went up not down.  He is not politically correct, and tells it like it is.  And the voters are ecstatic, thinking things like: "It's about time!"  The media doesn't understand it.  The republican establishment doesn't understand it.  But Trump continues to be honest, and he continues to lead in polls.

Quite frankly, people are sick of political correctness.  They are sick of people telling us we need to be offended by words and flags, when we aren't.  We are told we must filter our words and our symbols, when we don't want to.

References:

• Real Clear Politics: Trump to Megyn Kelly: "I don't have time for political correctness."
• PollingReport.com: White House 2016 Republican Nomination

Planned Parenthood: Heart of Aborted Fetus Was Still Beating

I think the biggest issue of our generation is that we are killing unborn babies.  Future generations will look back on our generation and say, "How could they have done that?"  Think of it this way: abortion is far worse than slavery because at least slaves had a chance at life.  Aborted babies had no chance whatsoever. 

The biggest killer of babies by far is a government funded organization called Planned Parenthood.  The best evidence suggests that this organization has killed over 7 million unborn babies since the 1972 Rowe-v-Wade decision.  However, considering the shady history of the organization, some experts suggests this estimate is way short of the actual number of lives ended by the organization.

What's amazing is that this is going on inside the United States.  We look back on our nation prior to the Civil War, and how African Americans were treated like property, and we think how horrible that was.  We think, "How could they have done that?"  But many did.  They treated blacks no different than they treated the floor they walked on or the horse in the stall.  

We have another video released by CenterForMedicalProgress.org that features Holly O'Donnell, an interview with a former technician for StemExpress, an organization that we now know partnered with Planned Parenthood for the harvesting of fetal body parts for science for profit.  She described how she was ordered to cut the face of a fetus whose heart was still beating in order so that the brain could be harvested. 

Because of the other videos that have been released, StemExpress has since divorced itself from Planned Parenthood.  So the first videos were pretty damning.  It's not an allegation that Planned Parenthood was selling body parts illegally, it's now considered as a fact.  You can watch the most recent video here. 

She says: "And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I'm sitting here and I'm looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don't know what to think."

Despite these videos, despite the evidence that this is a pathetic oranization up to no good, a bill that made its way to the Senate to defund the organization was shot down on an almost straight party line vote, with only one democrat voting in favor of defunding the organization.  So the defenders of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness (or in this case simply life) are not in the democratic party.

As was the case in the 1860s, republicans are the defenders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Republicans are the defenders of life.  This is not a political statement, it is a fact. Republicans worked hard to win African Americans their natural right to live free, and they are now fighting hard to win unborn babies the right to live.

Further reading:

• Washington Examiner: Planned Parenthood Whistleblower: Heart of Aborted Fetus Was Still Beating
• Breitbart: Planned Parenthood Clinic Cut Through Dead Baby’s face to Get His Intact Brain
• Articulating Ideas: Planned Parenthood: The Undeniable Truth
• Articulating Ideas: The Evils of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood: The Undeniable Truth

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)

I bet most people are unaware of the fact that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger with the goal of ending poverty by controlling the black population. So it is no coincidence that most Planned Parenthood offices are conveniently located in minority communities.

This was made light of on the campaign trail recently, when republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson said:

Maybe I am not objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but, you know, I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and one of the reasons you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find a way to control that population. I think people should go back and read about Margaret Sanger who founded this place — a woman Hillary Clinton by the way says that she admires. Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany said about her.

Margaret Sanger believed liberated women did not want large families 

and motherhood was a socially imposed constraint on their liberty. 

She believed it was a false consciousness to want a large family.

She believed that if women thought of sex as a pleasurable experience,

rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control 

as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. 

She brilliantly used the word 'liberation' to convince women

that they weren't going along with a progressive collective scheme,

but were in fact "speaking truth to power."  

Sanger was the first leading champion for birth control.

Carson is right.  Johah Goldberg, in his book "Liberal Fascism," said that Sanger wanted to prevent the reproduction of unfit people, and regulate reproduction of everyone else.  She once wrote in a 1922 book, "The Pivot of Civilization": "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the belief issue of birth control."

You have to understand that the goal of progressives was to create a perfect world.  In the introduction of her book, Orson Wells wrote: "We want fewer and better children... and we cannot make the social life and the world peace we are determined to make, with ill-bread, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us."

Goldberg said that in 1939 she started what she referred to as the "Negro Project," which aimed to get blacks to accept birth control.  Through the Birth Control Federation, she even succeeded in convincing black leaders to help pare down the supposedly large black population.

The ultimate goal of progressives such as Sanger, once again, was to create an ideal world, and to establish a "heirarchy of desirable persons," according to Ian Tuttle of National Review. Sanger's Birth Control Federation report reads: “The mass of significant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes . . . is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.”

Now, if this is not racist, I don't know what is.  She must have recognized this, as she went on to say, according to Goldberg: "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Carson encouraged people to read up on Sanger, Just check out her 1922 book, where she also said:

The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit” [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization. . . . The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Yes, it is true: she was a leader in the fight to eliminate people she deemed to be inferior and a burden on society, and this included both the mentally challenged and the Negro populations.

Interestingly enough, Sanger's Planned Parenthood was about doling out birth control, not abortions.  In fact, she abhorred abortion, calling it "barbaric," an "outrageous slaughter," and "the killing of babies."

What Hitler did during WWII put an end to any eugenics programs that existed on the planet, as the idea was revealed for what it really is.  But Sanger's mission to "liberate" women through birth control lived on through the feminism movement.  Today, few people know about the woman and the "movement" that gave birth to the organization.

Ironically, today's Planned Parenthood is even more eugenic than Sanger's Planned Parenthood, as one of the services offered by the organization is abortions.  Planned Parenthood is now the leading organization when it comes to aborting unwanted un-born children, having killed over 7 million of them since the 1972 Roe -vs- Wade decision.

Abortion rights, or pro choice, advocates say defend this number by saying that abortions are only 3% of what the organization does.  Yet an aborted baby is a dead baby who never even had a chance to succeed or fail. That, my friends, is the undeniable truth.

The undeniable truth is, as noted by Goldberg: "Abortion ends more black lives than heart attacks, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African-Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions."

Tuttle said that "the abortion industry, intentionally or not, has carried on Sanger’s troubling legacy. Why is it that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, black women are five times likelier than white women to have an abortion?"

Tuttle said that the pro-life organization "Life Dynamics" recorded the ZIP Codes of every Planned Parenthood facility.  The organization reported: "We identified 116 ZIP codes with more than one population control facility. Of those, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this means is that, when the American family planning industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be disproportionately minority as not."

Of course, Tuttle says critics of the study say Planned Parenthood is just building centers where they are needed, and this so happens to be in African-American neighborhoods.  However, Planned Parentehood also claims that birth control would prevent unintended pregnancies in these neighborhoods, and that has not happened.  In fact, the opposite has happened.

Tuttle said, "In 2011, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute published the findings of a study comparing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in 1994 and 2006. Among women with incomes below the federal poverty line, the unintended pregnancy rate rose by 50 percent. They also experienced an increase in abortions."

So the organization is promoting riskier sexual behavior through its birth control services, and then offering abortion services needed to end unwanted pregnancies.  Of when you add in here that that the organization is also illegally selling fetal body parts, the organization seems more and more shay.

If the organization were truly about preventing unwanted pregnancies among impoverished neighborhoods, facilities would be equally dispersed in all impoverished neighborhoods.  Because they tend to only be in impoverished African-American neighborhoods, we can see that Margaret Sanger's vision is living on, although "in a new form." said Tuttle.

Further reading:

• Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism, pages 270-277
• National Review: What Ben Carson Knows About Planned Parenthood
• Young Conservatives: Dr. Ben Carson: Planned parenthood was started in order to abort black babies
• Articulating Ideas: The Evils of Planned Parenthood
• Confused Nun Wrong About Abortion
• Young Conservatives: Hilary Clinton Gushed About Love For Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger in Comments from 2009

We do know what dead people thought!!!

We do know what they thought because they wrote a lot.

Quite often I find myself quoting the founding fathers or other dead people.  Recently I did this while debating with a friend of mine who happens to be a liberal and an atheist.  I essentially was explaining to her that belief in God is integral to any functioning society, and the founding fathers knew this.

She argued that there is no way I could know what the founding fathers were thinking.  She said there are many times people like me (meaning God fearing conservatives) say that they know what people of the past were thinking, and that this is not possible. Her exact words were:  "But, you shouldn't claim that dead people believed things that you can't personally witness."

To this I said: "Isn't that the purpose of writing, to share what you witness?"

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father, and we have many copies of things he wrote while he was alive, and it is through these writings that we know what he thought on various issues. It's often believed that he did not believe in God. Whether this is true or not does not matter.  

Jefferson and John Adams wrote many letters back and forth, and in many of these letters they discussed the importance of religion.  They discussed how the young United States could not afford to keep up a military, and therefore they were concerned that the nation would be able to prevent people from committing crimes that might destroy the nation from within.  

By their review of history, they believed that no nation could exist without people who were fearful of a greater power.  They believed that nations that feared God and the Devil were able to keep their people under control.  

It was for this reason the founding fathers believed it was essential for America to be a Christian Nation. It was for this reason the Ten Commandments are etched on the walls where the Senate meets.  It's for this reason "In God We Trust" is engraved on coins.  

This strategy worked, thus holding the nation together through some really defenseless and tough times early on it its existence.  This strategy worked until the 1960s, when progressives started to break down the infrastructure of this nation, first and foremost by their efforts to extricate God from schools and God from Government.  

My point here is that we do too know what dead people thought, especially when these dead people wrote their thoughts and opinions when they were alive.  

However, despite her claims that there is no way I could know what dead people thought, she wrote: "Einstein found the Bible 'childish, primitive.'  

So, while I can't say that dead people believed things, she did the same thing.  So obviously, either she has been reading the writings of Einstein, a dead person, or she somehow knows what a dead person thinks.  Yet since she doesn't believe in God, nor angels, then how is it that she can possibly speak with dead people? 

So I come back with this: "Einstein believed in God, and said that he sees no reason why God and science cannot co-exist. He said, 'Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'

Rush Limbaugh once said that liberalism is the cowardly choice, because all you have to do to be a liberal is say you care for something or someone, and come up with a solution that someone else pays for.  Then when someone criticizes your idea, you attack them with vitriol such as: "You are an idiot, Nazi, child hater, women hater, homophobe, racist."  Sometimes they say nice things like, "You are not being nice."

In this case, such vitriol came out as, "You can't possibly know what dead people thought." In other words, she had no argument to refute what I said, so she attacked my words.  She did this even though what she said was untrue, made no sense, and was hypocritical.    

I'm used to this, as this is what usually happens when you debate someone who has no facts to back up their opinion.  That's how these discussions usually go.  This is what I'm used to, considering I like to challenge people with facts and logic.  Sometimes though, as was the case here, continuing the discussion wasn't worth my time. 

My point here is not to criticize my friend's comments. My point is that I often like to quote the founding fathers to prove a point that my liberal friends have no counter argument for.  So, instead of citing facts, they attack me with vitriol like, "There's no way you can possibly know what dead people thought.  

Quite the contrary: "You can know what dead people thought."

The Evils of Planned Parenthood

So now we know why Planned Parenthood refuses to talk moms out of aborting their babies: the organization is profiting by selling fetal arms, legs, and heads.

They are babies. They are little bodies and body parts of God's little creatures who will never even have a chance to live.  They have had that chance aborted.

Planned Parenthood makes, say, $500 for the abortion, and then $75 for arms, $75 for legs, $75 for heads, and $75 for bodies.  Put that together and you get a net profit of $800 per abortion.

That's enough money to keep the organization running regardless of how much taxpayer funds are going to pay for all this.

So, now let's address funding for planned parenthood.  According to cnsnews.com, "Planned Parenthood Got $540.6 Million in Government Grants in FY 2013."  According to factcheck.org, this revenue was only 45% of the organizations profits.  Likewise, only 3% of the total services offered in 2009 were abortions.

Of that 3%, no federal funds were was used to fund abortions, as the Hyde Amendment prevents the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.

Of course recent events now have us wondering if any of these statistics are even accurate.

We learn the organization is now making revenue selling body parts at stemexpress.com. We know this because of some undercover videos that have come out where members of the organization have openly discussed, while drinking coffee or eating donuts or whatever, the art of carefully aborting the bodies without destroying priceless body parts.

On one of the videos, Holly O'Donnell, ex procurement tech for StemExpress, a Placervill, California, company, said: "For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated. The harder and the more valuable the tissue, the more money you get. So if you can somehow procure a brain or a heart, you're gonna get more money."

One of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress is rather graphic, showing technicians using tweezers to pick through aborted tissue looking for body parts. When the person in the video appears to pluck out a pair of intact kidneys, a person off camera laughs and says, "Five Stars!"

McConnell describes Planned Parenthood's relationship with StemExpress.  She said, "StemExpress is a company that hires procurement techs to draw blood and dissect dead fetuses and sell the parts to researchers. They've partnered with Planned Parenthood and they get part of the money because we pay them to use their facilities. And they get paid from it. They do get some kind of benefit...If you can somehow procure a brain or a heart you're going to get more money than just Chorionic villi or umbilical cord."

She then went into further detail. She said: "I've never had anxiety before this at all. So I'm looking, and I don't know what's going on. I had no idea this is what's gonna happen happening, especially my first day. Literally she has tweezers and she's like, "Okay, well, this is the head, this is the arm, this is a leg." She hands them over, "Oh, here you go. Can you show me some of the parts I just showed you?" The moment I took the tweezers I put 'em in the dish, I remember grabbing a leg. And I said, "This is a leg," and the moment I picked it up I could just feel, like, death and pain. I never felt like that before, like shoot up through my body, and I started to... I blacked out."

A fifth video records a conversation with director of research at the Gulf Coast office, Melissa Farrell, who says, "If we alter a process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments as this. I mean, that's... It's all just a matter of line items."

Here she is talking about human body parts as though they are just things that can be sold.  This is exactly what slave owners thought of slaves prior to the Civil War.  This is exactly what Hitler thought of Jews. Today it's unborn and defenseless little babies that are being treated as things that can be owned, bought and sold. Farrell says this nonchalantly while having lunch at a restaurant.

Of course selling fetal tissue for a profit is illegal, and Planned Parenthood denies any of this is happening. Despite this, the Senate voted to continue forcing us to support this organization with our tax dollars whether we want to or not.

What's really amazing is the people who support Planned Parenthood are mainly liberals, the same people who run around saying that profit is bad, capitalism is bad, and black lives matter.  These are the same people who don't support capital punishment.  Then they support organizations like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions, and lie about what they do to the bodies.

So how do we know that they don't lie about how taxpayer money is used? So how can we believe our taxpayer dollars aren't being used to fund abortions? How can we be sure that the 55 million abortions said to have been performed since the 1973 Supreme Court is accurate?  How do we believe Planned Parenthood hasn't performed abortions that they don't report? How can we trust them? How can we continue to fund them with our money?

This is Planned Parent Hood.  It's a tax payer funded organization that participates in killing unborn babies, sucking any chance of life they had away from them.  It's an organization that every one of us is paying for even whether we want to or not, or whether we think what they do is abhorrent or not.

Further reading:

• Washington Post: Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood stalls in Senate
• Factcheck.com: Planned Parenthood
• CNSNews: Planned Parenthood got $540.6 million in government grants in FY 2013
• Rush Limbaugh: Future Generations Will Look Back and Wonder How This Country Lost Its Soul
  
• StemExpress.com
• Rush Limbaugh: We cry over the death of Cecil the Lion but shrug off Planned Parenthood
• Rush Limbaugth: 5th Video, and it gets worse

Obama plans to build shacks next to nice houses

Liberals believe the way to make the world better is by doing battle with society's moral defects (real or perceived).  This is why they started wars, such as the war on poverty and the war on drugs.  Now they are trying to start a war on suburbia.  Obama has saved this war for last because he knows darn will it will not go over well.

So what is it? Liberals like Obama believe it is not fair that wealthy white people have moved out of Detroit and into suburbs where their are zoning laws requiring certain types of homes. This is to prevent shacks from being built next to really nice homes.

Obama thinks this is not fair.  He thinks that it's not fair that these wealthy white people living in the suburbs get to go to nice schools that provide good educations, while the impoverished (mostly blacks) have to live in shacks and go to inferior schools.

So he aims to do something about it by doing battle with suburbia.  What he did was create the Affirmative Further Fair Housing Rule (AFFH), which give the government leverage to re-engineer every American neighborhood. preferably arranging the so that they are a mix of racial and ethnic compositions.

This rule allows the White House to decide what percentage of a neighborhood is female, black, white, Indian, Mexican American, or whatever.  Rather than the people in these neighborhoods deciding for themselves, the government gets to decide.

This rule allows the federal government to trump local communities.  For instance, if Obama wants to make a suburb more balanced racially, he can overrule any zoning laws.  He can then create un-elected federal bodies to force local communities to create new laws that require organizations like HUD to come in and build cheap, affordable homes next to wealthy homes.  This allows poor people from inner cities (mainly minorities) to build shacks next to nice homes.

Worded another way, what he or some other government official will do is, for cities that receive federal funding that are deemed to have a greater than a 50% white population, pressure them to change zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing.  Inner city minorities will then be relocated to more affluent communities.

The noted goal of all this is to make it more fair for minorities and poor people to live in nice neighborhoods and to attend the nice schools. However, the real, unstated goal is to make these communities so that they are less likely to vote for conservatives and republicans.

They actually succeeded in trying this in Westchester County, New York.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) came in and trumped all their zoning laws and force the local ordinances to create low income housing.  The community had to pay for this at their own expense in order to create more of a balance.  In other words, it allowed shacks to be build next to nice houses.

When this all started Westchester was a completely liberal area. When the people of Westchester got wind of this, they booted our all the liberals and elected conservatives.  Now the town is run by conservatives.

The problem liberals don't see is that none of this is fair to people who have worked hard to get ahead and live in a nice neighborhood, and this includes both blacks and whites.  They see it as unfair that Obama wants to put impoverished people who can't afford to wash their clothes, can't afford to keep up their homes, and don't cut their grass, and don't watch their kids, in their nice neighborhoods.

A better approach is to encourage inner city folks to elect republicans.

Of course now Obama wants to do this for the entire country.  Will their be a public outcry?

Further reading:

1. National Review: AFFH: Admission of Stealth Caught on Video - Stanley Kurtz
2. National Review: Massive Government Overreach: Obama’s AFFH Rule Is Out - Stanley Kurtz
3. Daily Beast: America’s Last Politically Contested Territory: The Suburbs
4. RushLimbaugh.com: This is Obama's War on the Suburbs - 07.15.14
5. RushLimbaugh.com: Obama's Plan to Eliminate Suburbs - 08.02.12
6. Flooding the zones: Obama plans to integrate neighborhoods by class  - 07.13.15
7. Obama administration to unveil major new rules targeting segregation across U.S.
8. Paul Sperry: New York Post: Obama's collecting personal data for a secret race database
9. National Review: Attention America's Suburbs: You have just been annexed

Are kids taught the whole story of American History?

Are our kids learning the truth about our founding in school? Sometimes I have to wonder. There are certain things that people do or say every day that make me wonder if they even have a clue about how and why this nation became what it is today. They don't seem to understand what makes this nation Exceptional.  

Here, I'll give you an example. On Monday Ted Cruse gave a speech announcing his candidacy for president. He talked about the Constitution and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The preamble, if you didn't learn it in school, goes like this: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, basically this is an acknowledgement by the founders of our country, declaring independence from Britain, that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, that the natural state of the human being contains God-given rights. It forms the foundation of the founding of this country.

Evidence that this hasn't been taught is when people who do talk about it are mocked and ridiculed. A perfect example comes from a Tweet by Yahoo News journalist Meredith Shiner:

Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"

Many people might miss this, especially if they hadn't been taught the true history of our founding. Yet to me this Tweet flat out shows that Shiner, a political reporter, was either not taught about the founding, or slept through that class. But, considering we see comments like this every day, I'm led to think it's simply not taught.

Surely history is taught, but things that don't support the progressive agenda are conveniently left out. Kids are simply not taught the true history of how our nation was founded. How else do you explain why people are so eager to sacrifice their liberties at the expense of moving forward their agenda? How else do you explain ignorant comments by adults who obviously graduated from American schools.

Just think of it this way. You have people like Shiner who are teaching our kids. You have people like this who are teaching adults. If all you do all day is read Yahoo News, then chances are pretty good you aren't going to learn about the true history of America. You're not going to learn it because the reporters teaching it have no clue. 

So when people who talk about the true nature of our founding the way Cruz did, people like Shiner look at them with dumbfounded expressions. Look, Shiner is a graduate of Duke University. She is well educated. But she is not well educated. This is sort of another example of how education does not make people smart, common sense does.

I would love to hear Shiner explain unalienable rights. I would like to see her reaction when I tell her that the idea that people are born with God-given rights is what separates our nation from all others. It's this idea that our Constitution was founded, and why it was written in a way to prevent our government from making any law that would "deny" these rights.

In the preamble only a few of the natural rights were listed. Jefferson didn't want to take up too much space listing them, so he wrote, "among these are..." This is because he knew that the other colonists knew what the other rights were. But, to make sure future generations didn't get confused, they listed all of them in the Bill of Rights.  (It is this truth that makes life so miserable for progressives who wish to advance their agenda, but that's a discussion for another day).

Yes, so our nation was founded on the belief that we are all born with God-given rights. No government can take these rights away, they can only be denied by government. Your right to make decisions you think are smart and some minority person in Washington thinks are stupid can be denied by a law -- but it can never be taken away from you. You can make whatever decision you want, even if it is denied. Of course if it's been denied, and you get caught, you might be punished.

I wonder if Shiner knows this. I wonder what her reaction would be to hearing this truth. She is totally clueless, and it's probably because the American School System failed her. She is probably one of many Americans taught in school that the government is better at solving problems than individuals. She is probably well educated about the theory of man-made global warming. She is probably well educated on political correctness.

She probably thinks, as too many Americans do these days, that her rights come from Washington; that everything she's allowed to do comes from the pen of man. She probably thinks that individuals need to be directed by experts in Washington. She probably thinks superior beings in Washington -- such as Duke or Harvard graduates -- need to act on our behalf to lead us in the right direction, which is whatever direction they think is right.

I wonder what Obama was taught about our history. I wonder what John Kerry was taught about our history. No, actually I don't wonder. I get a pretty good idea by listening to them talk that, even if they were privy to an accurate history, they weren't paying much attention.

The founding fathers risked everything so that Shiner could do what she does. Yet she has no clue. If such men existed today, she might think of them as extremists.

She probably thinks rights are whatever lawmakers say they are. But if that were the case, if this is what the founders thought, then this nation would not exist today. It would not be the same. Because, if that were the case, if rights came from the pen of man, the pen of man could take them away. If they are God-granted, then you always have them.

This reminds me of a story I heard once of a prisoner in a Japanese or German (I can't remember which) war camp during WWII. He was behind bars and had a gun aimed at his head, and he said to the guard, "I am more free than you right now." The enemy guard, laughed and said, "Now what would make you think that?" The U.S. prisoner said, "Because no matter what you do to me, I can still love my country."

Shiner probably wouldn't understand.

Just to make sure I am not off my rocker on this topic, I posted the following on Facebook knowing that some one would argue with me to prove my point. 

Too many kids get through the American educational system without being taught that this nation was formed based on the idea that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, and that the natural state of human beings contains God-given rights. My point is, the truth about our founding is not taught in many of those history books. So kids grow up not appreciating what American Exceptionalism really is

I received two quick responses, which included my nephew:

It's not the kids fault that we teach our kids the minimum requirements for a factory job and that we don't pay teachers enough to care as well as treat every student the same even tho every student is most definitely not the same, And standardized testing is just a joke.

And the whole "Merica" and "God" thing is just stupid.

And a cousin:

I'm confused. What do we need to teach kids about the founding fathers that we don't? 

This last one came with a link to Wikepedia: Separation of Church and State.

Yes, I do believe these comments help to prove my point: our government run school system is not doing a good job of teaching the truth about the founding of this country.  Our nation suffers as a result.

And you're welcome to disagree with me, although the consequence of doing so might prove me right

Further reading:

1. Newsbusters: Yahoo Political Reporter: Cruz Talking About God-Given Rights Is 'Bizarre'
2. RushLimbaugh.com: The Americans Who Risked Everything 
3. The decline of American History in Public Schools
4. What is American Exceptionalism
5. Transcript: Ted Cruse Speech at Liberty University
6. How do you define smart?

Who gets to Heaven?

Whether you get to Heaven is between you and God.  So it doesn't matter what I think, nor what I assume.  However, it appears to me that not all people who believe will get to Heaven.

So what does the Bible say about Heaven and who will get there.  The answer comes from Psalm 15, or a Psalm of David, "Who Shall Abide in God’s Sanctuary?"  David asked: "O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill?"

The Lord answers: 

"Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up a reproach against their neighbors; in whose eyes the wicked are despised, but who honor those who fear the Lord; who stand by their oath even to their hurt; who do not lend money at interest, and do not take a bribe against the innocent. Those who do these things shall never be moved."

The subject was addressed again in John 14: 2-3.  Here,  Jesus said:

"Do not think of trouble. You believe in God. Believe in me also. In my father's house are many rooms. What I tell you is true. I will go there to prepare a place for you. Because I will prepare a place for you, I will come back for you. Where I am you will be also. You know where I am going. You also know the way"

Doubting Thomas, a friend of Jesus, said, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?"

To this Jesus replied, "I am the way. I am the truth. I am the life. Nobody comes to the father except by knowing me"

So the way to Heaven is to believe in Jesus and to live through Him.  The way Jesus would live is described in Psalm 14 by David.

Of course it's not possible for us to live exactly the way Jesus did, and so we all make mistakes (i.e. sins) from time to time.  Good Christians will feel guilty when they sin, and ask for forgiveness.

This brings us to 1 John 1:9, which states, "If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing."

Confused Nun wrong about abortion

Sister Joan Chittister

There has been a lot of chatter on the Internet about a quote from Sister Joan Chittister, a Catholic nun and author of over 50 books, regarding her views on the Catholic Pro-Life stance on abortion.  She said:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

I believe that a quick refresher on history, and her own religion, would easily show Sister Joan that she is incorrect in her assertions here.  For one thing, 99.9% of all people lived in poverty for 99.9% of history, meaning that 99.9% of children born were born into poverty.

This is a fact that cannot be disputed.  Most people thoughout history lived under totalitarian dictatorship-type governments, and most commoners had no chance to acquire any wealth or material property.  People hunted, and fished, or worked on farms every day just to put food on the table.

The role of the Church suggests that it is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children, even if that means making personal sacrifices.  Of course that's aside from the fact that procreating, giving birth to children, and keeping them alive, is essential for humanity to continue.  Had a majority of impoverished parents aborted their children throughout the course of history, most of us would not exist today.

The Bible also teaches about personal responsibility, accountability, charity and justice. These are all things that must come from individual choice, not by government mandate.  Surely it is noble to give to the poor, but it is not noble for a government to force such by government edict and taxes.  Social justice, redistribution of wealth, which is what this nun is hinting at, does not teach responsibility and accountability, and it surely is not charity nor justice.

My dad once said that once two people are married, they should have children regardless of their financial status or material desires.  My dad is right. Had our parents, grandparents and great grandparents decided to wait for the ideal time, or wait for government handouts, none of us would exist today.

So while pro-choice pundits may think that this nun, who may be one of the smartest and nicest people in the world, "Brilliantly Exposed “Pro-Life” Hypocrites With This Hard-Hitting Quote, they are wrong. Nothing is more valuable than life.  And once aborted, there is no chance at all,

We are all prophets

So God reveals himself through The Word, and The Word appeared as human flesh by the name of Jesus.  So Jesus, in dying for us, made us all prophets.  In this way, we are all -- those of us who are believers, anyway -- unprofitable servants.

Jesus shared his wisdom with the apostles, and through the Church their teachings are shared by the Bishops and the Priests.  They then share the wisdom of the Lord with all the people of the Church.

There's a better way of summing this down a bit.  Consider that in the Old Testament there are 16 books of prophets, or people who listen to the wisdom of the Lord and interpret this wisdom and share it with the people.  

There are various names for such prophets, such as revelators, seers and patriarchs.  For our purposes we will refer to them as prophets.  Some of these prophets include Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Zechariah, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai, and Ezias.  

The New Testament also has prophets, such as John the Baptist, whose prophecy was that Jesus was coming.  Some listened and heard him, while others chose to ignore him. This was the case for all the prophets.  

Jesus made us all prophets.  By his Death, he made the wisdom of The Word available to all who choose to accept it via the Holy Spirit.  Some refer to prophets like us as unprofitable servants of the Lord, meaning that we share His wisdom as acts of charity.

So, your assignment, if you so choose to accept it, is to use your gifts to share the wisdom, either by your actions or your voice.