Friday, July 24, 2015

Planned Parenthood and Moloch

In the time of the ancient Israelites, the Old Testament tells of periods when the Jews fell into apostasy and began to worship false gods and idols.  Among these pernicious straying’s from God included the worship of Moloch, with its rite of child-sacrifice, brought to them from the Ammonites during the 7th century B.C. 
 
"Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Moloch the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon." ~ 1 Kings 11:7

The ancients would stoke a raging fire within this idol of Moloch and place their newborn babies in the arms of it thereby watching them burn to death in order to offer their sacrifices to him.

Leviticus 18:21 says, "Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Moloch, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord."

This offering to the god-idol Moloch was done for the favor of the parent.

Nine thousand years later we are still sacrificing our children for the supposed favor of their parents. 

Planned Parenthood is at the very core of this despicable and evil sacrificing of our unborn children.  This vile organization has been riddled with scandal and controversy over the course of its entire existence.  From its founding by the racist eugenics proponent, Margaret Sanger, to more recent scandals of not reporting to legal authorities victims of sex trafficking or incest that had sought out abortions, we now have come across the latest publicized scandal: the selling of aborted baby body parts.

I was disgusted and horrified, like most Americans, as I watched the video of “Doctor” Deborah Nucatola – Planned Parenthood's Senior Director of Medical Services – dispassionately discuss over the course of her lunch of wine and salad how she skillfully killed unborn babies in a manner that preserved their organs in order that they could be harvested for sale for “medical researchers”.

"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, I'm not gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

When the under-cover baby-parts “buyer” asked about getting the patient’s consent to harvest her child for its organs, Nucatola sounded exasperated:

“That’s probably the biggest inconvenience, ugh. That’s one more thing my staff has to talk about.”

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards has apologized for Nucatola’s “tone” and manner of speaking.  This, in itself, tells how frightened Planned Parenthood is about the public backlash from this.  In all honesty, Richard’s apologetic remarks for Nucatola’s “tone” are inconsistent with their stated beliefs.  After all, if these aren’t really babies and are simply “tissue” specimens, why would Ms. Richards have to apologize for “Dr.”Nucatola’s tone when discussing the matter?  Nobody would need to apologize for simply “harvesting” tissue for use in medical research. 

The fact is these are absolutely recognizable living unborn babies that were sacrificed for the convenience of the parents.  Richards apologized because even some of the people that claim to be pro-abortion had to come face-to-face with the facts that these human children were being killed and their livers, heart, lungs, and other organs were “harvested” in the name of “research”. 

I don’t condemn those that feel so desperate that they see abortion as their only choice to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.  I feel extremely sorry for them and pray for God’s comfort, wisdom, and guidance for them.  I pray for the abortionists as well.  That said, what Planned Parenthood and other similar institutions do are nothing short of evil.  The killing of the unborn is inarguably against orthodox Christian and Jewish doctrine.  It is against Natural Law.  It is against common sense.

Moloch was an ancient false god whose worshippers sacrificed their children to him.  Today Moloch’s followers more commonly refer to him by his new name “Choice”.



Post Script:  The United States provides funding for Planned Parenthood via tax-payer dollars.  In 2014, the amount of public taxes that went to support them was nearly $550 million dollars – over a half of a billion dollars!

While I have yet to endorse any candidate for president thus far, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has introduced an Amendment to bill H.R. 22 (the vehicle for the highway bill) that would defund Planned Parenthood of any further tax payer dollars.  While this evil institution needs to be eradicated, cutting all federal funding is a good first step.  Please sign this petition to your U.S. Congressman and Senators if you support Senator Paul’s efforts with his amendment. 

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

A Country Run by Idiots

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If you have to get your parent's permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote for who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt , you live in a country run by idiots.  

If, in the largest city in the nation, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If an 80-year-old woman can be strip-searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is cute, but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.  

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you safer according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.

If it is okay to hate those citizens that disagree with gay “marriage” because THEY are intolerant, then you live in a country run by idiots.

If politicians demand that a burger flipper in McDonald's should be making $15 an hour, while those in the military that are putting their lives in danger daily typically make far less than that, then you live in a country run by idiots.

If your politicians pass a healthcare law that is “for the benefit of all the people” but exempt themselves from it, then you live in a country run by corrupt idiots.

If hundreds of millions of your tax-payer dollars each year go to fund an organization that kills unborn children and then further profits from selling their body parts, then you live in a country run by ghoulish idiots.

If your company is forced by federal mandate to provide abortifacients and birth control in violation of your conscience, faith, and first amendment religious right, then you live is a country run by un-constitutional idiots.

If you are offended by this article, I'll bet you voted for the idiots who are running our great country into the ground.  

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Isidewith Quiz: Helping the American Voter in the 2016 Presidential Race

I have long held that a vast majority of the American voting public is woefully under-educated (or completely uneducated) when it comes to civics, current events, domestic policies, foreign affairs, economics, and history.  It is simply a fact that most of our populace is sadly ignorant.  I don’t necessarily mean this as a pejorative indictment against them.  I understand that most Americans are simply busy trying to raise a family, go to work, and pay the bills.  Paying attention to politics and the issues of the day as they relate to the governing of our nation simply aren’t as high of a priority for most people with the scant time they have left in the day.  Understandable.  I do get it.
 
That being said, if we don’t pay attention to these issues, when the time comes to vote, we are not knowledgeable about which candidate truly represents our own views on issues.  We, therefore, often end up voting for a candidate based on sound bites in the media, or what is trending on Facebook.  We vote by what is popular without understanding the ramifications of what our decisions truly should be, based on our own values.  This is how we end up with un-qualified and integrity-challenged candidates such as Barack Obama in the White House.

Luckily, I have come across a website that can help those Americans that might not have the time to conduct the research needed into the myriads of candidates and their positions that are running for president.  This site is isidewith.com.

This website has compiled the various positions of each presidential candidate based on their stated stance on any given issue and created a quiz for voters to take to see which candidate most closely reflects the voter’s given views.  If a candidate speaks repeatedly on a given issue during their campaign, then their passion score for that given issue goes up.  If they pull a Romney or an Obama and flip flop on a particular matter, their most current position will be used to match your response, but their passion score on that issue will go down.

It takes anywhere from ten to fifteen minutes to complete this fairly comprehensive quiz.  When doing this quiz, please note that there is a sliding scale to the left of each question that you need to adjust according to how important you think a particular issue is.  The quiz’s algorithm judges the passion/conviction of the candidate with the importance level you deemed the given issue.  Further, please be aware that each question in the quiz will often have more than just “yes” or “no” options for your response listed under “other stances”.  To get the most accurate results of which candidate best represents your views, check to see if there is a better answer there besides just the yes or no responses accordingly.

There are eight sections of issues in this comprehensive quiz: social, environmental, economic, domestic policy, healthcare, education, foreign policy, and immigration.  Note that each of these eight sections start with just a handful of questions on the quiz.  At the bottom of each section is a text link to show additional questions. Your results for the quiz will be much more accurate if you answer all of these questions under each section and determine how important each issue is to you on the sliding scale previously mentioned.

My quiz results were not horribly surprising to me, as I have done a lot of research and am definitely more up to date on political issues and current events than is the average American voter.  While I have not chosen a candidate that I will back in the primary election to date, there are a handful of people that I am considering as possibilities.  The top four best matches with my views and values were indeed the candidates I am currently considering.  Further, the candidates I have least in common with are indeed at the bottom of the results list where they should be.


I recommend this quiz for all American voters, whether politically educated or not.  I think some people will actually be surprised that the candidate that best reflects their viewpoints may not be the person they thought it would be.  If this prompts otherwise politically ignorant American voters to delve a little deeper into the candidates before casting their all-important vote, then this is indeed a valuable tool, and one that is sorely needed. 

My results are below:





Thursday, July 2, 2015

A Letter to the Gay Community from a Loving Daughter

The cultural, and now legal, redefinition of marriage does indeed have enormous societal ramifications, particularly for the children of gay parents, as I have repeatedly argued.  This open letter from the daughter of a lesbian mother and her mother's partner helps to explain her anguish. Sadly this girl and many other children of gay parents that have had the temerity to speak out are either squelched or shamed back into silence.

With the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage across the country last week, we are told by its supporters that "love wins".  But it seems to me that we are simply putting our own desires of whom we choose to sexually love over the loving needs of our children.  Gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody we are told by its proponents.

Try telling that to Heather Barwick and the thousands of other children of gay parents.


Thursday, June 25, 2015

The Rainbow Contradiction

In the Old Testament book of Genesis, scripture tells us how God decided to wipe all of humankind from the earth with a great flood because of their wickedness.  Only the righteous Noah and his family were spared because of his faithfulness to God.  After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah and his kin that He would never again send a flood to destroy the earth.  His promise of this covenant was the beautiful rainbow He set in the sky.

I have always loved rainbows, since I first heard this story as a child.  There is something about them; about the prism that the rain droplets make that separate the light wavelengths into their different beautiful colors that has always fascinated me and made me feel joyful. 

These days, it is both ironic and frustrating to me that the rainbow has been recognized as the symbol for the gay rights movement.  I don’t know if this misappropriation was done intentionally and mockingly of God or not, but regardless, I have long ago discovered that God allows us to suffer the consequences of our own sinful actions – particularly when we purposefully choose to take a stand against Him.  As a nation, we seem to have done precisely that, and embracing the LGBT movement is just one more example of our turning our backs on God. 

It seems that we are once again presented with another significant opportunity to turn away from Him.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is expected to release its ruling on gay marriage in the next few days; likely it will be on Monday June 29th.  SCOTUS will rule on whether states can legally ban gay “marriage”, and also whether states can refuse to recognize a same-sex “marriage” that was legally performed in another state.
 
Many learned folks presume that the SCOTUS will indeed strike down gay “marriage” bans.  Regardless of whether they do so this month or not, it does seem that public opinion would suggest that it is inevitable that gay “marriage” will eventually become the law of the land within the next few years. 

I, personally, don’t think the government should be involved in the institution of marriage of any sort.  Marriage, as it has been defined and held to for millennia, was and is only between one man and one woman.  It is a religious sacrament.  It is the bedrock principle of western civilization.  Without this sacrament, it is impossible to believe that our societies would have flourished and prospered.  Government really should not be inserting itself into this by granting licenses to whomever it deems appropriate to engage in holy matrimony.  That is something better left to the churches.  Or, if a person is a non-believer, they can become “married” through a civil wedding.  Regardless, the government should stay out of it.

Personally, while I see the long-term societal harm of gay “marriage”, I am rather Libertarian on the issue.  If two gay people choose to form a union, so be it.  But to misappropriate the term “marriage”, which is a religious sacrament between man, woman, and God, to describe their union seems to be a slap in the face to those of us who still do hold marriage to be a sacrament – to be sacrosanct.  Gay people can call theirs a bonding union or what-have-you, but it is not marriage. 

God created marriage and words mean things.  We can twist words and try to give them new meanings but saying that two men or two women joined together in a civil ceremony is a marriage is about as ridiculous as calling a man, a woman.  You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

Of course the upcoming SCOTUS decision will have many drastic long-term ramifications for our society.  If they do strike down gay “marriage” bans as expected, we can also expect further lawsuits against religious institutions that still recognize the sacramental nature of marriage and refuse to “marry” same-sex couples.  These institutions will be targeted as discriminatory and hateful and in violation of federal law.  Already there are efforts under way to remove the tax exempt status of many faith-based organizations that refuse to recognize, let alone celebrate the LGBT culture and lifestyle. 

Those individual Americans that believe homosexual actions are wrong and sinful will also be further ostracized and targeted via force of law in the coming decade.  Already private businesses have been shut down and destroyed for refusing to take a peripheral part in gay weddings.  In Canada, it is considered hate speech and illegal to preach against homosexuality.  In certain states, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because they refused to adopt out children to gay couples. 

How long until the federal government insists that since gay “marriage” is the law of the land, that churches must “marry” gay couples or lose their tax exempt status, or even worse be fined?  This likely decision would seem to me to create additional great conflicts as it places the “right” of gay “marriage” up against our 1st amendment right to freedom of religion and the exercise thereof.  This probable decision will likely only serve to further divide an already fractured nation.

Despite all of this, we are all still called to love our neighbor as our self.  God tells us not to condone sin, but also not to condemn our brother or sister.  It is His place for such judgment.  We must love our neighbor, regardless of their sin.  And we are all sinners; me, most especially.  Love the sinner, hate the sin, we are told.  That means we love each and every child of God, not just the straight ones.  Everyone.

Our country and the world is indeed changing, and I fear it is certainly not for the better.  It is infinitely easier to be on the right side of history than it is to be on the right side of Truth.  That said, I will stick to my beliefs and do my best to live my life according to them, regardless of the contempt that our new “enlightened” society throws at me.  Even Christ said, "In the world you will have troubles, but take courage; I have overcome the world."  John 16:33 


And I know and believe in Him when He tells me this.  All of that said, I still want my rainbow back. 

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

The Progressives Continuing Mission to Eradicate the 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  

Thus says the 2nd Amendment of The United States Constitution.  This crucial, self-evident right of the people was one that our Forefathers enshrined within the Bill of Rights.  James Madison thought that the Bill of Rights was largely unnecessary since the Constitution itself clearly defined the specific powers and duties of the federal government.  Any other powers not specifically enumerated within it were assumed to belong to the people or the States, as was then clarified by the 10th amendment.

Fast forward to the 21st century and I find myself very glad that our forefathers did indeed stipulate the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) for the American People.  Even so, there are many people today, particularly on the left of the political spectrum, that assume the 2nd amendment was never intended to be an individual right.  After all, it talks about a “well-regulated militia”, so in their minds this must be a governmental right.  Such people are either ignorant of history and context, or are deliberately dissembling.

First of all, would it make any sense for the Bill of Rights to enumerate all of the individual rights of Americans that the federal government was obliged to protect in the other nine amendments but insist on another governmental right in the second amendment?  If that was the intent of that amendment, why wouldn’t the framers have placed that within the main body of the Constitution? 

No.  All of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights were absolutely intended to be rights reserved to individual American citizens and not to the federal government.  This was finally confirmed yet again in the 2008 Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller and again in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. 

Nevertheless, today’s leftist politicians have become a little more circumspect in how they violate their oath of office to defend the constitution when they seek to ban private gun ownership.  In other words, they have tried to incrementally infringe on this individual right.  The have lied to the American People. 

“Nobody wants to take your guns away,” they decry.  “We simply want to enact ‘common sense’ gun laws that any reasonable person should be able to agree with.  After all, nobody needs an ‘assault weapon’ or a ten round magazine – let alone a thirty round magazine,” so the paraphrase goes from politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, to President Obama himself.

Yes, what the left cannot eradicate carte blanche by doing an end run around congress or by illegal executive orders, they try to do piecemeal with innocuous sounding ‘reasonable bills’ presented in congress.  Here are just a few of the current federal and state attempts to erode our vital 2nd amendment right:

House Resolution (H.R.) 1454 – This bill would give President Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) the authority to ban nearly all common rifle ammunition.  This was tried recently with a proposed ban on all “green tip” 5.56 mm ammunition which is used in perhaps the most ubiquitous of rifles in the United States: the AR-15.  Luckily the outcry from the public was so great, that the BATFE backed down on this ban for the time being.

Operation Chokepoint – This is the Obama Administration’s new set of shadowy banking regulations that is currently responsible for shutting down gun shops nationwide by making it impossible for them to secure ordinary loans and lines of credit.

United Nations Gun Ban Treaty – Despite the fact that the U.S. Senate has failed to ratify this pernicious treaty, the Obama administration is still on mission to implement many of the anti-gun tenets of it.

H.R. 1217 – This new proposal in Congress would implement Obama’s national gun registration scheme.  (It is a lot easier to confiscate all of the legally owned weapons if you know who owns them, after all!)

S. 407 – This new bill in Congress would ban the manufacture and sale of standard capacity magazines.

H.R. 224 – This new proposal would empower President Obama’s anti-gun Surgeon General to publish propaganda that frames our Second Amendment freedom as a public health problem.

H.R. 307 – This new Congressional bill would force us to pay for a national gun “buy-back” scheme through our tax dollars.

H.R. 225 – This proposal would give unelected anti-gun bureaucrats at the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to regulate and ban our firearms as they thought reasonable.

Multi-state legislation 1 – Several proposals are pending in multiple states that would require gun owners to keep their firearms locked away, unloaded, and disabled, thereby rendering them useless for self-defense.

Multi-state legislation 2 – Various proposals are also pending in many states that would increase taxes, sometimes severely, on all firearm and ammunition purchases.

Multi-state legislation 3 – Many states are trying to pass Obama’s national gun registration scheme that failed to pass congress two years ago on state levels.

Multi-state legislation 4 – Finally, multiple states have put forth legislative proposals to repeal “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws that effectively strip a gun owner of the right to use a firearm in most self-defense situations.

The purpose of the second amendment was not to secure Americans with the ability to go hunting or trap-shooting.  Our founding fathers knew that the only way to protect our young nation against enemies both foreign and domestic was to provide that “We The People” were able to ensure our own safety, and thus hold government accountable as it exercises its Constitutional duties – and only it’s Constitutional duties.  It is ironic and quite worrisome that many of our elected officials today are seeking to infringe upon or even eradicate the one amendment from the Bill of Rights that guarantees that we will still retain all of our other rights.  After all, an unarmed citizenry becomes completely reliant upon the beneficence of government in their granting of our other rights.

Those members of congress and elected officials who would seek to enact legislation or enforce regulations that are contrary to the 2nd amendment are indeed in default of their oath of office to support and defend the United States Constitution.  Every last one of them that so brazenly ignores the dictates of the Constitution, especially when it comes to violating any of the enumerated amendments in the Bill of Rights is a disgrace to the public and the nation and should no longer be allowed to serve in such a capacity accordingly. 


If only the American public was not ignorant of civics, history, and the long-term ramifications of not holding these officials accountable.  It is incumbent upon us to pay attention to our elected officials with what they say and do, regardless of their political party.  When they do violate their oath of office by violating our Constitution, we need to all work as a community to ensure they are removed, or at least not re-elected to office.  It requires diligence, but the guardianship of our American liberties certainly deserves no less!