May, 2005

 

 

In The Mailbag... Get the lead out, people. What happens in the election process is OUR RESPONSIBILITY! --Joe

On May 31, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Fa. Frank Pavone wrote:
The 2006 Senate elections are not as far away as they may seem, and they provide a critically important opportunity for us to advance the cause of the unborn child.

Politics and government are only a part of the bigger solution to the abortion problem, of course. But they are an essential part. The work of advancing the right to life through elections requires tremendous patience, and a long view of history that recognizes that many foundations have to be put in place before we begin to see progress.

In the last several election cycles, pro-life people have been increasingly active and successful, advancing pro-life majorities at both the state and federal level. Again, progress is painstaking, but we have to keep moving forward with the momentum that has begun.

We at Priests for Life have been preparing for the 2006 elections since the conclusion of the 2004 elections, and we invite you to become part of this process. Here are a few simple steps you can take:

1. Read more about what the Church and the pro-life movement have to say about elections at www.priestsforlife.org/elections.
2. Begin to register new voters. Find out how at www.priestsforlife.org/vote.
3. Keep in contact with our election team so that they can offer you opportunities to help in your own state.
You can contact John and Sean at vote@priestsforlife.org

Thank you for your interest, your commitment, and above all, your prayers!

Sincerely,
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director

posted 05/ 31/ 05

 

 

On The Wire...
Go, Florida, go! That a hugh win for you, and a big loss for The Planned Predator Federation of Aminsane. An object will tend to remain at rest, until acted upon by an outside force. Momentum... momentum. Now keep the pressure on! --Joe

By Associated Press / Published May 26, 2005. See: Governor Signs Parental Notice Bill
TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill Wednesday that requires physicians tell parents when a minor daughter seeks an abortion.

Bush signed a similar bill into law in 1999 but the courts blocked it, finding it violated the privacy provision in the Florida Constitution. But voters last fall overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment carving out an exception to the privacy guarantee so that the next abortion notice law would have a better chance of withstanding a court challenge.
The Legislature, which had proposed the constitutional change, passed the law on the final day of this spring's two-month session. The law, which takes effect July 1, applies to girls 17 and younger who aren't married and don't already have children. Unless it is a medical emergency, doctors are required to notify a parent in person or by phone 48 hours before the abortion or, if that's not possible, by certified mail 72 hours in advance. Girls can go to a judge and seek a waiver, and judges can grant a waiver based on a girl's level of maturity, or because she has been a victim of abuse by her parents, or if telling the parents is not in the girl's best interest.

In a release issued by his office, the governor said it was imperative that parents know when their children undergo any surgical procedure. "This not only ensures the safety of our children, but also strengthens the family unit by maintaining open dialogue between parent and child," Bush said. State lawmakers this spring passed another abortion bill, which arrived in the governor's office Wednesday. That legislation would impose stricter state oversight on clinics that perform second-trimester abortions.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it had decided to review a parental notice law from New Hampshire. The justices will decide whether health exceptions are required in abortion laws requiring parental notification. A lower court struck down New Hampshire's law. In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the nation's high court ruled that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect the mother's health.

Posted 5/ 28/ 05

 

In The Mailbag...This is one example of an "Down Under" Joe that is making a differance in Australia. --Joe

Take the Bridge to Save Our Kids"

During World War II a small group of Aussies wreaked havoc on Japanese shipping in Singapore harbour. They were Z-force. They sailed to Singapore from Cairns in a ricketty Japanese fishing boat called the "Krait". Once there they entered the harbour in canoes and placed mines on Japanese ships. It was a daring and dangerous operation. It was also an outstanding success and these gallant young Australians managed to return safely home. Their story is avaliable in video shops, it's called "The Heroes".

 Today there's a war being waged against children before, during and just after, birth, by anti-life radicals . For years the enemy has had a superior weapon, the media, which has poisioned and influnced the minds of decent and unsuspecting Australians and blinded them to the massacre happening in our cities. This has resulted in the deaths of millions of babies world-wide.
People, the tide is turning in this battle, we're about to launch a massive offensive to end this war. We're about to strike on a new front. Thousands of babies are about to be liberated. We are going to win this war.  We will accept nothing less then an unconditional surrender. We have a new weapon ;  AbortionTV.com The majority of people in Australia are decent. They are also ignorant of what is happening. I was one of these typical Aussies. Recently, friends were considering an abortion. I knew it was wrong as I was a Christian and Mum had been in Right to Life for 30 years, I'm 32. However, I was "on the fence" with some areas of abortion. I decided to look into it and did a search on the internet. AbortionTV.com was a site I found.
On that day, my world crumbled. That was the day I felt ashamed to be an Australian. As Aussies, we pride ourselves on always sticking up for our mates and supporting the underdog. As Aussies, we believe everyone should have a "fair go" and yet here we are murdering innocent and defenceless children. That night I had mixed emotions, rage, shame, anger, shock, despair, guilt, etc. Also that night, I became 100% pro-life - no compromise. After printing some pictures and articles, I showed it to my friends. As a result, their baby will be born in August. They said, "it was the pictures that did it".

AbortionTV.com is an informative site. It has pictures, videos (including the Silent Scream), botched abortions, aborted abortions, abortion survivors, personal experiences, etc. This is truth. It has saved lives and changed people from anti-life to pro-life in the blink of an eye. --Peter

Posted 5/ 28/ 05 

 

In The Mailbag...

OMG! I freakin LOVE your site! I am very much against abortion and think it is immorally, spiritually, and logically wrong!!  Thank you for speaking out against abortion!!

 

Posted 5/ 28/ 05

Thank you,

We are working real hard to out the truth. We need to hear from supporters via e-mail. We need the voices of young men to be heard. Tell your friends!

May God bless and keep you safe.

--Joe

 

posted 05/ 28/ 05

 

 

In The Mailbag...This is one example of an "Down Under" Joe that is making a differance in Australia. --Joe

Take the Bridge to Save Our Kids"

 During World War II a small group of Aussies wreaked havoc on Japanese shipping in Singapore harbor. They were Z-force. They sailed to Singapore from Cairns in a ricketty Japanese fishing boat called the "Krait". Once there they entered the harbour in canoes and placed mines on Japanese ships. It was a daring and dangerous operation. It was also an outstanding success and these gallant young Australians managed to return safely home. Their story is avaliable in video shops, it's called "The Heroes".

Today there's a war being waged against children before, during and just after, birth, by anti-life radicles . For years the enemy has had a superior weapon, the media, which has poisioned and influnced the minds of decent and unsuspecting Australians and blinded them to the massacre happening in our cities. This has resulted in the deaths of millions of babies world-wide.

 People, the tide is turning in this battle, we're about to launch a massive  offensive to end this war. We're about to strike on a new front. Thousands of babies are about to be liberated. We are  going to win this war.   We will accept nothing less then an unconditional surrender. We have a new weapon ; AbortionTV.com
  The majority of people in Australia are decent. They are also ignorant of what is happening. I was one of these typical Aussies.

Recently, friends were considering an abortion. I knew it was wrong as I was a Christian and Mum had been in Right to Life for 30 years, I'm 32. However, I was "on the fence" with some areas of abortion. I decided to look into it and did a search on the internet. AbortionTV.com was a site I found. On that day, my world crumbled. That was the day I felt ashamed to be an Australian. As Aussies, we pride ourselves on always sticking up for our mates and supporting the underdog. As Aussies, we believe everyone should have a "fair go" and yet here we are murdering innocent and defenseless children. That night I had mixed emotions, rage, shame, anger, shock, despair, guilt, etc. Also that night, I became 100% pro-life - no compromise. After printing some pictures and articles, I showed it to my friends. As a result, their baby will be born in August. They said, "it was the pictures that did it".

AbortionTV.com is an informative site. It has pictures, videos (including the Silent Scream), botched abortions, aborted abortions, abortion survivors, personal experiences, etc. This is truth. It has saved lives and changed people from anti-life to pro-life in the blink of an eye. --Peter

 

Posted 5/ 25/ 05

 

 

On The Wire... It's this kind of thinking that's leading us all off the deep end of reasoning... my boss included. Absolute power, especially in the form of a forbidden firearm, corrupts absolutely. We have not learned from our past, hence the repetition of our mistakes. By the People? Please! --Joe

Dear Arizona Daily Star Editor:

Have Shooting Enthusiasts Lost Their Brass Collective Minds?

The offering of Gun Safety Classes (Sunday 05/22/05: "Gun Safety Classes Face Hurdles"By: Mary Vandeviere) to Arizona schools, or any schools for that matter is NOT what we need to teach students responsibility. The last thing this country needs is to introduce gun familiarity and marksmanship to our already academically struggling students.
The rational offered by supporters for the as yet undeveloped curriculum is teaching gun safety and responsibility. This, in an era where gun violence and school shootings no longer have quite the same impact on us as it once did. Kind of like STS Shuttle launches (Most Americans weren't even aware STS was on orbit [until] the aftermath of a couple of catastrophic disasters.)
I wonder if any of the perpetrators in the past school shootings, here and abroad, had attended their local NRA, 4H, Boy Scout, or whatever, or simply done as any loose-screw, ill-parentally nurtured kid has done, and took lessons from the "Lock and Load, kill-anything-that-moves, Good Ol' Boys School a' Shoot'n Em Up Real Good When we've Lost It.
We don't have to look at the examples like tobacco's "Skol" sponsored Music festivals", or alcohol's"drink and be cool" advertising that impresses adult wanna-bees, to know that what we have here is Pad-the Gun-Industry-pockets with the next generation of Big-Brass Spenders.
As a former Vietnam era Marine with a seven-time small arms Expert qualification history, I guess I know something about firearms, and it is this: Responsibility begins at home -- you don't teach it on a shooting range, and it begins with a respect for life, not at close range staring down on a "man" or "dog" target, or a classroom full of students.
Guns are for hunters and shooting enthusiasts, not for kids who are starving for something to believe in.
What ever happened to fathers who had the desire, and took the time over years to pass on their gun-lore to their well balanced sons and daughters.
Will we never learn the pros and cons of emotionally-unbalanced gun safety: You teach them to be Pro with a gun and they're likely to become Cons. We make our own beds. I at least can sleep in mine. --Joe

posted 05/ 26/ 05

 

 

In The Mailbag... There has been a void in the White House. I'm afraid this ship of ours is full speed ahead... and rudderless. --Joe

The Real George Bush
David Brownlow /May 14, 2005 / NewsWithViews

How could a "pro-life" President stand by and do absolutely nothing while six million unborn American children were ripped from their mother's
wombs during the last four and a half years? That question has baffled many, including myself, who voted for him in 2000. How could we have been so wrong? Now that President Bush is four months into his second term -- and now that he has no future elections for which to pander -- we can finally answer that question.It is because we now know the real George Bush.

While he is very good at talking the pro-life talk on the campaign trail,
as President he has failed to give us even the slightest indication that he believes abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Bush apologists would say it's not his fault that so many have been
murdered on his watch. "He's just the President, after all. What can
he do?" But the fact is, he has plenty of authority to get into the
abortion fight -- if he will only decide to use it.
Take a look at the oath he swore in January of 2001: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article II, Section 1. of the Constitution

Then read this portion of the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The very Constitution he swore to uphold gives him all the authority he needs to seriously disrupt the ability of those in the legalized child-killing industry to conduct their deadly business. He has the FBI, The US Marshals, and about a hundred thousand other armed federal agents that work directly for him. (Which is a scary thought by itself!)

However, despite his blathering about the "culture of life," President
George "there will be no pro-life litmus test for judges" Bush has
steadfastly refused to engage any of his armed minions in the fight to
stop the mass murder of millions of Americans. (And instead has turned
them on the rest of us!)

One of the biggest cons ever pulled off on God's people is the notion
that we have a Christian, "conservative," pro-life President. This wolf in sheep's clothing has slipped into our camp undetected and is wreaking
havoc in the church.

Bush entered into his second term with a TON of political capital. He
had the chance to cash that in by getting himself into the abortion
fight. What did he do instead? He chose to spend that political capital
on "saving" Social Security -- a completely illegal Ponzi scheme -- and
more warfare! At least we know where his heart is.

It is amazing how many apologies pro-lifers can make for this
President. One of more common ones is, "Abortion is not the President's
fault. He's not a dictator, so he has to obey the law." We can debate the dictator part later, but does George Bush really obey the law?

Could it be possible that George Bush's devotion to the law is what drives
him to submit to a "law" that was written 32 years ago by seven (now
dead, and likely in Hell) Supreme Court Justices? Could it be his love
of the law that causes him to stand by and do absolutely nothing while
so many millions of unborn Americans are dragged away to a horrible death?

No. Not a chance. The law seems to mean very little to George Bush.

Bush is getting ready to sign off on another unconstitutional, completely
illegal federal budget. This one, like the rest of the ones he has signed,
will be so chocked full of unconstitutional spending that over 80% of the
money our federal government is going to extract from the American people over the next year, will be spent on programs that are completely illegal.

Instead of obeying the law, George Bush has shown utter contempt for
it. Was it lawful for the President to lie about Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction as an excuse to invade a foreign country that posed no danger to us?

Was it lawful for the President, after his lies were exposed, to keep
our occupation forces in Iraq for the purposes to freeing the Iraqi people from an evil dictator?

Was it lawful for the President to burn through $300 billion of our money, send 1,600 of America's finest young men and women to their deaths
-- along with the tens of thousands of Iraqi's we have killed?

No, Bush's Iraqi war was completely illegal. If any of the world's
other despots did what this President has done, they would be tried as
war criminals.

So let's not kid ourselves that George Bush has the slightest respect for the law. Because if he did, he would obey the law he swore to uphold in 2001, which says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Instead, he allows the legalized child-killing industry to continue grinding out another 3,800 dead babies every single day.

We know what this President is capable of accomplishing when he puts
his mind to it. No one is going to accuse him of walking away from a fight. Just ask anyone living in the "Depleted Uranium" wasteland that was once Iraq.

One should question how it is that Bush has shown such courage when it comes to freeing the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, while he shows such a lack of concern for the millions of children who are being
murdered by a bloodthirsty gang of American abortionists?

The answer is simple. We have finally met the real George Bush.

Posted 5/ 24/ 05

 

 

On My Mind... Gulianni for President?

 "To arms, to arms... the inhumanitarians are coming!"

While I am grateful for the work former New York Mayor Rudy Gulianni during the aftermath of the events of 9/11, I cannot even entertain the thought of Mr. Gulianni as a candidate for President of the United States. "Baltimore Cardinal Skipping Commencement Over Giuliani's Abortion Stance" (www.wnbc.com) It is my opinion, and I speak for many who agree, that his stance on abortion must not allow the possibility. We are in a time when we must look to leadership that will guide us towards an end to the atrocity of legalized abortion. We must rally to select leaders with moral and spiritual conscience. "We the people..." are a powerful voice when coalesced, and this is one battle among many we must choose to fight now. I call on all supporters of life to call, write, or visit your state and local representatives and media to speak your voice. --Joe

Posted 5/ 20/ 05

 

 

On The Wire... This is a reality check: the hard way. We can end this atrocity if we continue to fight. --Joe

From Washington Dispatch.com
Commentary
A Mother's Tale: Abortion, Face to Face
Commentary by Judie Brown
May 17, 2005

A strange series of events in a Florida abortion clinic has some of us scratching our heads and wondering whether the culture of death will be outwitted.
Consider the case of Angele, a single mother of three children, only two of whom are alive. During her pregnancy with her third baby, Angele decided to have an abortion. At the time, her baby was 23 weeks old. After this long in the womb, many children born prematurely have an excellent chance of surviving. Nonetheless, Angele decided she did not want this baby to live.
As news reports reveal, the clinic worker gave this young mother valium, inserted laminaria in her cervix, sent her home and told her to come back the next day for the actual surgical abortion. Laminaria is used to dilate the cervix and valium is provided to lessen the pain of cramping the mother may experience prior to her return for the abortion. When Angele returned the following day, she went into premature labor.
As labor pains intensified, Angele reportedly screamed out for help, begging someone to call 911. Sadly, no one came to her aid. Angele pushed and her son was born, born alive in a sterile room. Then suddenly her agony was magnified with horror when the very medical professionals who respected her so-called right to choose abandoned her completely when she chose to save her son.
For a few moments after the unexpected delivery of the little boy she named Rowan, Angele comforted her son. But not long after his birth, the little boy died.
Shortly thereafter, Angele engaged attorneys to file suit against the abortion business. Somehow this mother now wants its personnel convicted because they had not rushed to save the very same baby she had paid them to terminate.
Suddenly this mother was a grief-stricken second victim of “safe and legal abortion,” realizing too late for her son that abortion is not the simple answer everyone told her it would be. But then, it never is.
This story sounds too bizarre to be true, but get used to it. As a pro-life veteran, it is my contention that we will see more and more reports like this as mothers begin to deal with reality. After all, mothers who choose abortion rarely perceive the child as a person. If they did, then abortion would be out of the question. But they don’t, so their pregnancy becomes a problem that, for one reason or another, must be solved.
Angele thought that if the abortion was completed, one of her problems would be over. She had not planned on meeting her problem face to face. She never expected to witness the consequence of her “safe and legal choice” — an innocent baby staring at his mother and reaching out to her in a heartbreaking struggle for life.
Is there any other scenario in the world in which a doctor can be sued for malpractice because the patient lived? Is there a more bizarre situation than that of a mother who paid to have her child killed later arguing that his ability to live a few moments is the result of negligence?
The attorneys are seeking disciplinary action against the abortionist, even though his business almost always results in a dead child. That is what abortion does, after all. The attorneys want the abortion clinic’s license to be revoked because the clinic did not provide emergency intervention for the child who was born alive.
But wait a minute. An abortion clinic is a place where “good medical care” is a contradiction. Their business is killing persons, not saving their lives.
Abortionists are practitioners of an act that violates the very core of medical ethics to “do no harm.” They market harm, and profit from the deaths of the youngest members of the human family.
We feel great sorrow for this mother who chose death for one of her children. We realize she is suffering not only the enormous pain of post abortion syndrome, but also the specific realization of just who her choice eliminated.
It is troubling to have to talk about a story like this, but perhaps something good will come from it. If he had died unseen, this little boy could have gone the way of the thousands of others who are aborted every day. If Angele’s abortion had gone as planned, nobody would be talking about malpractice or license suspensions. Indeed the purveyors would have been paid, Angele would have gone home childless, and life would have gone on — for everyone except Rowan. At the very least, Rowan’s short life was remarkable because it allowed his mother a change of heart.
To my mind it is unthinkable that the solution to all this would be to merely regulate a place where ending the lives of the innocent is the trade that is plied minute by minute, day by day. Every abortion claims an innocent human life. That isn’t always presented in such stark fashion as it was in Rowan’s case. But's always the truth. When will this madness stop?

© Copyright 2004 The Washington Dispatch

Posted 5/ 20/ 05

 

 

This is an open letter to Pastors. it's good food for all of us. --Joe

A WORD TO PASTORS (from John Piper's Brothers, We Are Not Professionals)

Many pastors surpass me in their courage and consistency. I praise God for them. I will happily honor their superior rewards in the last day. But oh, how I long to be among them. So when it comes to abortion, I try. So much more could be done. I agonize over what more I should do, and this is not the only such issue! But for fifteen awakened years I have done what I can.

I preach on the horrific sin and injustice of abortion and on the glory of the cause of life at least once a year in our church. I try to encourage the Sanctity of Human Life Task Force in our church in other ways. I call our people to dream of ways of being sacrificially involved in the pro-life efforts to make abortion unthinkable in our country. I glorify adoption and fan the flames of its spread in our church. I offer precious blood-bought forgiveness and hope to all the women and men in the congregation who have experienced or encouraged abortion. I speak and pray at pro-life gatherings outside abortion clinics and support crisis pregnancy centers with my presence and my money. In past days I have joined peaceful protests and been arrested numerous times and spent one night in jail. I have made my case for life before angry crowds, and before judges, and over lunch with an abortionist.

The point is this: I believe pastors should put their lives and ministries on the line in this issue. The cowardice of some pastors when it comes to preaching against abortion appalls me. Many treat the dismemberment of unborn humans as an untouchable issue on the par with partisan politics. Some have bought into the incredible notion that they can be personally pro-life but publicly pro-choice or noncommittal. In response to this attitude our church sponsored an ad in the Minneapolis StarTribune with these simple words: “I am personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice” – Pontius Pilate.

The law of our land is immoral and unjust. That should be declared from tens of thousands of pulpits in America...

John Piper, "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals". Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers

Posted 5/ 19/ 05

 

 

On The Wire...This is must-read! --Joe

May 16, 2005, 8:28 a.m.
Subject: A Call for Boldness (National Review) By: Hadley Arkes
The administration has already produced a breakthrough. This is the time to push on.

As the first Mayor Daley once said, “I have been vilified, I have been crucified, I have been…criticized!” I think I’m seasoned in receiving criticism, but it’s a bit novel to receive criticism layered with the kind of generous praise that Ramesh Ponnuru offers, even as he records his disquiet over my strategies for the pro-life side. He charges me with being ungenerous toward President Bush in my recent piece in First Things. And he leads his own piece with a report on the dramatic move of Mike Leavitt, the new secretary of Health and Human Services, when he announced the serious efforts by the administration to begin enforcing the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act. But of course Ramesh did not know that Secretary Leavitt had called me right before the announcement, to tell me of this move by the administration. Nor did he know that the secretary had read the piece in First Things, along with some of my other writings, and all of this came as a prelude this new initiative by the Department of Health and Human Services. The secretary had apparently learned that I had been the author of this act, and it was a lovely gesture on his part to be in touch. Quite evidently, he did not see me as an adversary of the president or of this administration. My piece had been put in his hands, after all, by some of my former students, and by other friends, in the administration; and indeed this new initiative, sprung on the world, could not have come about without the work of so many people in the administration committed to the pro-life cause and connected with me in bonds of friendship over many years.

But these recognitions were amply made in that piece in First Things: I had said that this was the most pro-life administration that we have ever seen since Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were engaged in the administration at every level, not only in the agencies, but in the White House itself. And I don’t have the least hesitation in counting, as a solid ally here, the redoubtable Karl Rove. As I had said in First Things, none of this was a matter of happenstance; none of this could have occurred without George W. Bush. Ramesh surely misstates the tenor and substance of the piece if he overlooks that praise of what President Bush has accomplished. But he also gravely misrepresents the piece if he overlooks, at the same time, the account that was given of the very little that was asked of the president — and I do mean “little.”

The things urged on the president were scaled back to the slightest, simplest things that could be requested, and yet it was made clear that even the slightest things were too much to ask. Such as what? What about simply informing hospitals and clinics that there was such a thing as the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act — that it was against the law now to withhold medical care from a child who survived an abortion? Even this year, administrators at hospitals professed not to know of this law. In the spring of 2003, we thought we had an agreement at the White House that the secretary of Health and Human services would issue such a circular. Why did it take nearly three years? And why did the press to make this move have to come from the Congress, or from people outside the administration? Why not from the White House?

But then, for that matter, what of the act itself? What could have been simpler for a pro-life candidate to talk about than the most modest first step of all, a proposal to preserve the life of a child who survived an abortion? Even a Republican candidate not very adventurous could have gone into the Republican enclaves of Connecticut and New Jersey and said, “Look, I know we don’t agree on abortion, but surely we can preserve the life of a child born alive? Why don’t we just start there?” There was nothing to lose and much to gain in melting some of those intractable Republicans. It was indeed a surprise that Mr. Bush as a candidate would not speak at all about this issue, made as simple and disarming as it could be. But even more astonishing was the fact that he never even endorsed the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act.

He did sign it. And he was kind enough to invite me to the signing, where he remarked that this move was a “first step in the changing of the culture.” I do believe he feels this in his bones, and I love him for that. His reticence I cannot quite explain. But it is damaging in a subtle yet biting way: For he is conveying the lesson that, in the judgment of a skilled political man, it is either impracticable or impolitic to make the pro-life argument in public.

In any case, the president set the pattern here: He will sign any pro-life measure that we manage to pass. Yet, he will do nothing himself to lobby for any bill, or even make the case for it in public. The most we can hope is that he will endorse a bill that others have shaped. Those of us who have been pleading that he do more can be grateful that he has just endorsed the bill, passed by the House, to bar the taking of minors into another state for the purpose of evading the laws on parental consent. Still, we know this now as a brute fact: Whatever can be accomplished on the pro-life side, the leadership must come from Congress. It will not come from the president. This we know now as surely as we know anything. President Bush may speak assuring words in pro-life enclaves, but he will not make the argument in any public forum, where he could be seen as engaging in any effort to persuade. The main point is that the press always treats these remarks as “private talk,” not as remarks that are intended to engage the broader public. We understood all of that, which is why we never expected him to wade into the public controversy. Ramesh writes as though I were faulting the president for not charging into New York or a meeting of the National Organization for Women, looking for a bruising argument.

After the Born-Alive Act was passed, I suggested, in memos to the White House, that he consider moves as simple and costless as this: He could note that the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act provides no penalties, criminal or civil. The bill was meant as a “teaching bill,” you might say, mainly to plant premises in the law. But now the president could simply ask one of the committees on the judiciary, in either house, to consider the question of what an appropriate penalty might be for withholding medical care from a child born alive. And yet — I would have had the president say — let us make the question even gentler. Instead of threatening people with jail, or with knock-out fines, why don’t we simply remove federal funds from hospitals and clinics who withhold medical care, or who perform the hideous partial-birth abortions? The only further exertion for the President was merely to pose one more question, either to Congress or his attorney general: What counted as a recipient of “federal funds”? Did the formulas of the Civil Rights Restoration Act apply? In other words, if anyone entering a clinic was receiving a Social Security check or being covered by Medicare, was the whole place now a “recipient of federal funds”

It was just the posing of questions. No executive orders, no major arguments. Entirely costless. But Ronald Reagan showed that he could set off weeks of discussion on late-night television, and stir hearings in Congress, simply by observing that fetuses feel pain. With the placing of those simple but pointed questions, the president could have set off deep tremors among the Democrats — the kinds of tremors that could indeed amplify into grave tensions, unsettling his adversaries, and yet setting the ground for other, serious measures. Was that really too much of a burden for a president to bear?
Ramesh credits me with brilliance, and yet in a move quite out of character for him, he seems to miss altogether the political strategy in which these moves were placed. The proposal to remove funds was offered as yet another gentle move, another gesture of moderation, avoiding penalties targeted at doctors. But the threat to remove funds touched the whole scheme of “legislating by indirection”. We still don’t know how the federal government can reach a private clinic counseling birth control. The federal government offers grants, and if people accept the money, the federal rules come along. But if not, there is no binding rule, no legislation in any strict sense. In this way has the reach of the federal government been extended over the past 40 years or more to accord with the reach of the liberal agenda.

The president could suggest the removal of federal funds as a more moderate form of penalty, and yet the Democrats would know at once how deeply that move would cut, and they could not stand back. If they acquiesced in this move, Congress could then begin legislating, in effect, on abortion, in a whole series of steps, starting with restrictions on abortions late in term. But in order to resist they would have to start dismantling this whole scheme of legislating through federal grants, and they could not do that without dismantling the structure of law that supports liberalism unbounded. If the Democrats really want to start taking down this structure, we would be more than willing to help them. As I argued to friends in the White House, this was, for conservatives, a win-win proposition.

And as for the liberals, would they really stage their resistance on this terrain? Would they fight for the sake of preserving a right to withhold medical care from children born alive? Or to preserve partial-birth abortion, a procedure rejected by about 70 percent of the public? Ramesh is one of the shrewdest writers on politics that I know; and yet I think he has seriously misgauged the prospects here. He fears that these moves are likely to be seen as provocative, and he thinks that far more is likely to be gained from appointments to the courts. I think he has things quite backwards. The Dred Scott decision on slavery was not undone by appointments to the courts. It was undone by a national, political movement led by Lincoln, and the resistance was felt in legislation long before it was felt in the courts. That political movement shaped the climate of opinion in which judges would work. We’ve had now 25 years of appointments to the courts by Reagan, and two Bushes, and we know the sorry record. We would also be engaging in a remarkable act of collective illusion if we imagined that even a Supreme Court, suitably altered, would move soon toward the overruling of Roe v. Wade. The courts are more likely to make their way to that end if the climate of opinion has been noticeably altered. The advice, tendered by Ramesh, to keep our heads down and be reticent is the wrong advice right now. And it is especially wrong when it may take only the slightest measures to push the Democrats over the edge and into their gravest crisis.

That they are in a crisis even they are now willing to acknowledge. Even Hillary Clinton makes sounds of reaching out to that pro-life constituency so massively lost to the Democrats. But she and her friends are evidently incapable of doing anything but making the most cosmetic of changes. This new move of the administration — this move to begin enforcing the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act — is the gentlest of moves, and yet it is a momentous breakthrough. The move to start withdrawing funds would not be seen as threatening in the country. It would be seen, I think, as a mark of seriousness, yet modest in its reach. But it also runs deep, and it could soon be joined by other measures, already in contemplation in Congress: viz., a general policy of removing federal funds from hospitals and clinics that violate the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act or house the grisly surgeries known as partial-birth abortions.

Three years ago, the Democrats had to be held in check to keep about 40 of them from voting in the House against the bill to protect children born alive. If the Congress moves with these further steps, I myself believe that nothing will hold the Democrats together. They could be pushed here into a crisis that could be terminal for them on this matter. We never expected to see the Soviet empire collapse in our lifetime; and here, I actually believe that we could be at the edge of the endgame on abortion. The administration has now produced, as I say, a breakthrough quite striking. This is not the time to hold back in doubt. If there was ever a time to push on, with measures gentle but pointed, this is surely that time. And to take a line from Lincoln, may the vast future not lament our failure to act right now, with measures so moderate, so focused, so readily within our grasp.

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

 

Posted 5/ 17/ 05

 

 

On The Wire...Breaking news: (All emphasis mine.-- Joe)


Abortion-Cancer Link Cover Up by U.S. National Cancer Institute Says Bioethics Journal

WASHINGTON, May 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly has published an article explaining how scientists published fraudulent research and deceived the public about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link - much as the tobacco industry covered up a tobacco-cancer link.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that the paper by Joel Brind, Ph.D. comes just five months after the editor of the journal Ethics and Medics, cited a cause-effect relationship and sharply criticized scientists for failing to "speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link.

"The U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) should be criminally investigated," declared Karen Malec, president of the coalition. "If German scientists had played the same shell game with women's health during World War II, they would have been tried at Nuremberg under American jurisprudence."

Brind's paper reveals a disgraceful, 48-year record of scientific misconduct and a reckless disregard for women's health involving the NCI, the U.S. Department of Defense, Oxford scientists, medical journals, the American Cancer Society (whose legal department attempted to intimidate the coalition for exercising its free speech rights), and others.  Some examples include:

Brind identified two abortion-related breast cancer risks, one of which isn't disputed.  Childbirth significantly reduces breast cancer risk, an effect universally recognized by experts and known for centuries. Only the independent link (whether abortion leaves women with more cancer-vulnerable lobules than they had before pregnancy) is debated.

Brind cited a conflict of interest between NCI career scientists who make grant funding decisions and independent scientists who "dare not break with the party line."

Nevertheless, there is hope.  Two U.S. women successfully prosecuted malpractice lawsuits against doctors for failing to disclose the link. The greatest cause of malpractice lawsuits today is failure to diagnose breast cancer. Doctors could provide better screening for the disease if they'd ask patients about their abortion histories on intake forms.

Brind's article will soon be available at:
http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com

Posted 5/ 17/ 05

 

 

                                        May, 2005

On My Mind...

I have been asked why so many pro-choice supporters respond with so much anger towards anyone who offers them truth. My only answer is that there are extremists in every faction. Hate is a terrific blinder, and as extremists from the pro-life wing destabilize, they are led to voice angry rhetoric, or perform horrible acts of violence. The same can be said for those supporters of pro-life who lose their sensibilities. Extremes are where anger and violence suppurate and infect clear thought. What need transpire is an organized debate of the facts by both pro-Life and pro-choice. Once the data is on the table, then the truth, open and irrefutable, will speak for itself. Then perhaps we can begin to enact legislation by the people and for the people that will do what law is designed to do: protect us from ourselves.
An angry pro-choice supporter said " Don't you know that people who don't believe in your God get [angry]", when I offer to include them in my prayers. I don't see the logic this presents, because if my God doesn't exist, then why should my harmless, (to them), praying for them bother them so much? It follows that their logic is flawed. It is perhaps this kind ignorance that produces rhetoric. --Joe

Posted 5/ 15/ 05

 

in the mail bag... I heard from a fan again. [see earlier entry for full text] It is baseless rhetoric like this pro-choicer's that will be the doom of the pro-life movement ... isn't it? --Joe

... Speaking of which, if they don't provide abortion [not quite up do doing the deed themselves, yet!], then their kick-back profits come from referrals. Same story: all about the money.

*** Wrong again, but lies are what sites like this are all about. my local PPH give referrals to ob/gyns as well. I don't see your Jesus [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] about them referrals.

...Fact: women will die of [abortion-related] breast cancer

*** False, but your breast cancer scare tactics don't scare me anymore than your Jesus fairytales

... beginning to acknowledge as the guilt-ridden of the medical and political public-service communities overcome their shame for denial and responsibility for countless deaths.

*** Blame Jesus .

...what remains to be seen is whether or not you , I, or others will have to pay dire consequences for our deeds


*** I was a planned and wanted pregnancy. Maybe that's your problem. your mother didn't want you, and now you're on a mission to control women's lives as payback.

...Every life has a right.

*** Except a woman's. Her life has no right to you. she is just a handmaiden designed to pop babies out to make jealous sick [expletive] like yourself happy.

...Every right has a fight. If you haven't aborted yet, don't be a fool!

*** I am going in tomorrow for another. Gotta fill my buy 10 get the 11th free" card. :D

...If you have then all I can do is desire for you a long, cancer-free life.


*** Sorry, care tactics work on the weak and feeble-minded (i.e., BAC), not independent women with minds of their own.

in response to "dana":
I don't get where you demonstrate that you know the truth, but I understand you now, dana. You write like a vulgar brat. You must be a child, sure... probably what, 12 or 13? Why I'll bet that you are just another pissed-off, miscreant product of a decadent society that promotes and enjoys casual sex with the neighbors, while popping off at the mouth with a vomitus that will surely be it's un-doing. You probably even got your mom one of those cute thanks for supporting choice bracelets that NOW was pushing for mother's day (?)
You back up your pathetic diatribe with trash-of-the-mouth, and you expect to be respected? Please! Loosen your berkenstocks and chew on this for a while you still have your capri knickers in a huff: I've had more intelligent conversation with elementary school kids. Final advice to the cosmically brain-dead? Buzz off, and get thee behind me, etc... Keep fighting your sad battle from the gutter where you apparently find comfort. Im praying for you. --Joe
PS: Regarding your highly respected, well-ppfa-referral-paid ob/gyns? Just who do you think does the murdering? --Joe

Posted 5/ 12/ 05

 

 

On The Wire...This was the most right-on things I read all day. Momentum, momentum... --Joe

Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 10:43:21 -0700 From: Pro-Life E-News
Subject: Ending abortion the Reagan way Posted: May 9, 2005/1:00 a.m. Eastern (c. 2005 WorldNetDaily.com)
The abortion issue is one of those "elephants in the room" kind of things that everybody wants to talk about, but nobody wants to be told to "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries," so they don't. Sometimes though, it's important to pause and assess where we stand on an issue.
The pro-life movement is on the right track in grass-roots efforts to go straight to the people who may be considering abortions and trying to convince them to choose life. This is a good move, and very Reagan-esque in its approach. When Ronald Reagan was president, he didn't go before Congress and whine, he went straight to the people and offered a heartfelt explanation of his position with a gentle and humorous assessment of the flaws in his opponents arguments. Something similar is happening concerning abortion ... with a little help from an unlikely source.
The number of abortions continues to decline. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is a flat-out effort on the part of the pro-life movement, but we also shouldn't underestimate the contributions of radical pro-choicers, whose arguments are so filled with illogic and ironies that their movement is often its own worst enemy. For example, we're just past the one-year anniversary of the "March for Women's Lives" on the D.C. Mall, an event I dubbed "Abortapalooza." Listening to speakers at pro-abortion rallies call the killing of babies "reproductive freedom," "pro-choice" and "planned family management" would have been comical, if it weren't so tragic. Had these people done public-relations work for the Khmer Rouge, the most harsh sounding "killing fields" would have been renamed a much more pleasant "Pol Pot Gardens" or "meadows of preference."
Never before in history, on any other issue, has so much dancing been done to so little music. In addition to the "Suzie Sunshine" approach to renaming fetal genocide - so it doesn't sound so bad on the "schedule of events" marquee in front of the aromatherapy tent - the holes in the logic of the hard-core pro-choicer can be, nonetheless, overshadowed by the way they do business.
Enter the National Organization for Women. We've just sailed through another Mother's Day, where we offer our appreciation to all those women who have had and raised children. Often, we express this appreciation with gifts. This is where the NOW tried to help. Is there any better way to celebrate and honor any mother in your life than by getting her a "Keep Abortion Legal" bracelet? For the NOW, Mother's Day was an occasion to tell your pro-choice mom, via a snazzy piece of jewelry: "Thanks for not wanting to go to jail if you'd decided to kill me in the womb." Touching. From a business perspective, this doesn't exactly sound like a money-maker. After all, the market for the bracelet could be artificially low. If the "right" celebrated on the bracelet has been exercised, it means the person who is supposed to give the gift isn't alive to make the purchase.
Then comes the often-heard line that abortions should be "rare, safe, and legal." If your county road commissioner said that the streets should be "accessible, smooth, and scarcely driven upon," he'd get laughed out of the city council meeting. "Rare, safe and legal" is a good example of the screwball incongruity touted by the likes of Hillary Clinton, and it's almost impossible to combat. A leftist like Hillary knows that, in order even to try to oppose this already jumbled position, her opposition may attempt to take on a contrary position - in this case, her opponent would have to rebut "rare, safe and legal" with "common, unsafe, and illegal." Everybody then says "huh?" Hillary wins.
Correcting the moral course will first require teaching our kids to spot bunk. Start them off slowly by taking them to a used car lot, then maybe work their way up to the next Bill Moyers special on PBS, followed perhaps by a Ted Kennedy speech. By the time this training is complete, the illogic ensconced in the pro-choice movement will be easy to spot. If the success of pro-life continues, perhaps Roe v. Wade could lose its sting. After all, people who had a proper moral upbringing don't refuse to, for example, rob a bank just because doing so is illegal. They refuse to rob a bank because it's wrong.
Pro-lifers are heading in the right direction, and will make great inroads toward their destination as long as nobody gets distracted by the flailing pantsuits in the rearview mirror. --Doug Powers
dpowers@worldnetdaily.com

Posted 5/ 11/ 05

In the mailbag... On May 10, 2005, at 9:41 PM, dana.scully@netzero.com wrote:

 Subject line: Misgonistic P.I.G.
Hey Joe, Don't want to have an abortion? Then don't. Easy as that. I don't scare with the Jesus [expletive] you try to use to control women. And guess what, [expletive]? My local PPH doesn't offer abortion services. Choose abortion. Your mother should have.

The term is misogynistic, "Dana", from the Greek word gyna, meaning women. And you are mistaken, I don't hold any hate for women... I don't even hate you. What I do harbor is an extreme dislike of the pervasive and twisted secular humanistic thought permeating the misanthropic ideology of abortion-for-profit providers, [read: MURDER-for-HIRE], including your warm and fuzzy local ppa. [speaking of which, if they don't provide abortion, then their kick-back profit is from referrals. Same story: All about the money] Abortees are NOTHING to them except a $$$ line on a ledger. The battle to end that doctrine is front-line, as legalized abortion is a real and perceived social injustice towards women. FACT: Women will die from abortion-related breast cancer, and the number of victims is growing. Children certainly do. The increased risk for breast cancer is a scientific fact, which medical science and Americans in general are slowly beginning to acknowledge as the guilt-ridden of the medical and political public-service communities overcome their shame for denial and responsibility for countless deaths.
Roe-v-Wade's days are numbered and the beginnings of a change in consensus is being recognized, and acted upon, both by the educated, and our legislature. You are right that abortion is a choice. And ignorance will always be blissful to the ignorant. What remains to be seen is whether or not you, I, or others will have to pay dire consequences for our deeds.
As to the remark about Jesus, that will very likely be cause of further unwelcome and apparently unexpected consequence. I'm glad you were not aborted. Every life has a right. Every right has a fight. If you haven't aborted yet, don't be a fool! If you have, then all I can do is desire for you a long, cancer-free life.
--Joe

Posted 5/ 11/ 05

 

On The Wire...  Excerpts from new STOPP Int'l Ryan Report April 2005 Edition
The truth is on the move, and the full text is MUST READ! --Joe
Excerpts:

Planned Parenthood acts as if it is above the law

We never cease to be amazed at the sheer arrogance of Planned Parenthood. You may recall that Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics Incorporated conducted an investigation where he had a woman call every Planned Parenthood abortion facility and say she was a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant as a result of sex with her 22-years-old boyfriend. Over 90% of the PP facilities cooperated with the girl in covering up that relationship. (earnedmedia.org)

In Kansas, attorney general Phil Kline began an investigation to see if abortion facilities in the state were involved in such cover-ups. Kline has said that one of the reasons for his investigation is that "rape is a serious crime, and when a 10, 11 or 12-year-old is pregnant, they have been raped under Kansas law." He pointed out that, in Kansas, no one under the age of 16 can legally consent to sex. "There are two things child predators want, access to children and secrecy, and as attorney general I am bound and determined to not give them either."

One of the places Kline wants records from is a Planned Parenthood abortion facility. Planned Parenthood is fighting the investigation claiming that it does not want to turn over the records. (kansas.com/mld/kansas/news)

In a similar investigation by Indiana state attorney general Stephen Carter, Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Carter from obtaining the records he needs:medicalnewstoday.com

In a related story, a couple in Ohio has filed suit against Planned Parenthood for committing an abortion on their 14-year-old daughter: ( lifesite.net )

 (all emphasis mine. --Joe)

Posted 5/ 07/ 05

 

 

On My Mind...


The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has basically perfected the method of separating it’s victims from the act of abortion. An unplanned pregnancy, especially for one who is a minor, is a crisis of uncertainty and runaway emotion. Women seek desperately for someone to guide them through the process of making intelligent informed decisions
At a time when a woman is most vulnerable, PPFA and other abortion-for-profit providers who've paid their way to the front of the information highway with a currency of crushed human fetuses, step in and add to the confusion with professionally presented smoke and mirrors that lure hapless victims into their trap. Women are greeted with a smile and are welcomed into the providers brightly decorated house of horrors. It is here that women are brainwashed with a secular humanist ideology, and convinced that killing their baby (following Margaret Sanger's original eugenics plan), is in the best interest of mother (?) child (?) and society.
I praise men and women wo have survived the experience from the front lines of the pro-abortion holocaust. We need to hear more telling tales of truth. --Joe

Posted 5/ 06/ 05

 

 

This is important, people! Go to: STOPP Intl Ryan Report and read the details. --Joe

Check out the following excerpt:
In February 2005, a book written by the Reverend Tom Davis, a minister with the United Church of Christ, was released. The book is titled Sacred Work: Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances. Tom Davis is the head of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Clergy Council. In April 2005, PPFA honored Davis with a Maggie Award for his book (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/media/pressreleases/pr-050413-conference.xml).

Sacred Work tells the story of how Planned Parenthood used clergy alliances to overcome objections to its programs in the early days of the organization. Davis says that, at its heights, clergy who publicly supported Planned Parenthood's efforts numbered 4,000. Davis goes on to state that Planned Parenthood is, once again, under fire and that the number of clergy actively defending the organization has fallen to 1,400. His conclusion is that PP needs to remember its past and again work to increase its clergy support and emphasize its support among the churches and religious communities.

Interesting items:

The book admits that Planned Parenthood is a Secular Humanist organization. This allows STOPP to use the Humanist Manifestos (http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html) even more in our battle. Here are some quotes from the book:
On page x, in the forward by Rev. Carlton Veazey, he specifically states: Planned Parenthood, a secular humanist organization.
On page 17, author Tom Davis writes: "The character of [Planned Parenthood's] involvement [in social action] can be seen in the secular humanism expressed in its statement of beliefs."

The book further documents the moral relativism of Planned Parenthood. It directly ties PP in to the ethics statement in Humanist Manifesto II that reads: "Ethics in autonomous and situational needing no ideological or theological sanction." Once again, this admission is useful to STOPP:
On page 110, Davis writes:
While resistance [against Planned Parenthood] remained strong throughout the forties and fifties, so did clergy support. One of the best examples of such support came in February 1949, when the Reverend James Clark, minister of the Second Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, prepared a radio talk that generated many requests for copies. It was called "The Ethics of Planned Parenthood." He linked Planned Parenthood directly to the situational ethics of Jesus: Planned Parenthood is a Christian idea because it is helpful to the spiritual happiness and physical well-being of both parents and children. It emphasizes the sacredness of personality as Jesus did. He declared that to judge whether a thing was right or wrong its effects on human beings would reveal its nature. If it lifted them up, it was good; if it degraded them, it was bad.
On page 190, is the following statement:
Clergy supporters of the Federation have a great appreciation for the role of human experience in the forming of a humane theology. While respecting scripture as the original source of any authentic Christian or Jewish theology, they believe it must be supplemented by the truth God reveals in the experience of living a human life When, from the thirties to the seventies, clergy started listening to Margaret Sanger, to Planned Parenthood, and to women who spoke about their situations, they stopped telling them how to live and instead offered support. These clergy believe that a theology of knowledge, experience, and responsibility is a theology of justice that helps real women in the real world.

The book is based on the premise that Planned Parenthood's work is all about achieving "social justice" for women. On page 7 the author states: "In the biblical view, sacred work is love, and in practical social realities, sacred work is justice."

The twisted logic by which abortion is about social justice and not killing human beings is given on page 169. After a several paragraph treatise on how churches failed to aggressively fight against illegal abortion, the author writes:
Given this historical disconnect, many pro-choice clergy have come to the conclusion that the "abortion issue" is not ultimately about abortion. It is about the role of women. The churches who complain most bitterly about Roe v. Wade are the very denominations that bar women from their ministry and priesthood. It is hard to escape the conclusion that these anti-abortion churches only became truly outraged when women gained the legal right to decide on abortion. Illegal abortion was given mostly verbal condemnation. But when women gained a power they had never had before, then legal abortion was seen as the crime of the century.
As this understanding of the situation became more common among clergy activists on social justice issues, more of them became supportive of Planned Parenthood. Regardless of the complexities of the abortion issue, some clergy saw that this current political struggle was about justice. One could not disconnect the other rights of women from their reproductive rights. The right to control one's own body made all the other rights possible.
Ultimately, then, despite all the rhetoric about the "right to life," it remains a question of social justice. What Planned Parenthood clinics faced in the 1980s was different in intensity, but no different in form from the conflicts of the past. it was a struggle against those who would limit the rights of women in the name of natural law, scripture, fetal rights, or God.

Posted 5/ 5/ 05

 

On My Mind

The worldwide web. Clearly one of the most important tools for visual communication ever devised. In a virtual instant one can come in touch with information from around the world as it happens. The Internet has changed and continues to shape our civilization.
But do you understand that the world wide web is also a battlefield? The opponents? Those who would seek out and expound on reality and the truth... and those who would seek to destroy it. Good vs Evil. The continuing saga. I know that the Internet is rife indeed with the spirits like the one that consumed Sodom and Gomorra. We've encountered him in the past, and he is many.
Take a look around. You've heard the horror stories about children who've clicked on a URL for a kiddy site and found themselves whisked away to a sight on graphic pornography, and far more horrifying tales. Stories about hardworking people who innocently make purchases on the Internet, only to find later that they've suffered some form of devastating identity theft. And you have heard the stories about young girls who, having made serious life-altering mistakes, have gone to the web seeking advice only to have the abortion-for-profit predators get to them first, and effectively brainwash them into electing abortion. with or without parental consent.
Why is this so? It is all about money, people! Tons of it! And because evil is alluring and financially successful, it has a louder audio and visual presence. They buy their way to the front of the search-engines. This is our fault. We are too late coming out of the blocks on this foot race, and we are not running just as fast as if our lives depended on it. Why must we continue to be loping along at the back of the pack?. Look, I am not being fatalist here. The war has been fought and won, thank Jesus! But this is our particular leg of this relay race. We still have to do our part. We can catch up, pass, and we can win. We just have to do more than talk about it. We have to do it.
--Joe

Posted 5/ 2/ 05