The campaign has already made its way to the Bryan-College Station area and is expected to be in Houston soon.

The billboards read ‘Black and Unwanted’ and show an image of a baby’s face. The campaign’s website, toomanyaborted.com, appears at the bottom.

“This campaign wants to expose the destruction of hope and possibility that abortion brings and offer something that is a life affirming solution like adoption or parenthood,” said Ryan Bomberger, one of the creators of the Radiance Foundation.

The Radiance Foundation and the Life Education Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.) are behind the initiative. Both groups are led by African Americans and say they are trying to expose what they call a huge racial disparity of abortions in Texas.

“Out of the over 80,000 abortions, 25 percent of those are on African American women even though African American women only comprise 12.7 percent of the population,” said Bomberger…

Read more

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON —  One week before Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan begins her Senate confirmation hearings, both liberal and conservative groups are criticizing her record on abortion rights.

The anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, which calls Kagan a pro-abortion activist, recruited failed conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork for a news teleconference this week to denounce her. At the same time, the liberal Center for Reproductive Rights released a report Monday casting doubt on the depth of Kagan’s support for abortion rights.

The seemingly conflicting developments highlight the degree to which key players — along with the public — can do little better than guess at many of her views on major constitutional issues.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which doesn’t take positions on Supreme Court nominations, released a report Monday concluding that Kagan has demonstrated intellect and knowledge of the law but has not weighed in on most constitutional issues. Free speech and presidential powers, on which Kagan has written extensively, are exceptions, the ACLU said.

“The simple truth is that there is much that we do not know about Kagan’s views on the Constitution and the court,” the ACLU’s report said. “The available record offers very few clues about her constitutional views on criminal justice, immigration, voting rights, prisoners’ rights, due process, the Establishment Clause and a host of other recurring Supreme Court topics.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights said it’s clear from her record that Kagan believes the Constitution affords the right to an abortion. But the group said some of her writings raise questions about how significant Kagan believes those rights are to women’s health, lives and equality.

The center says it’s important that the Senate ask Kagan about her views on the matter during her confirmation process. It criticized as “troubling” Kagan’s contention in a 1988 memo she wrote as a Supreme Court clerk that elective abortions are by definition not medically necessary.

Kagan was writing a memo to Justice Thurgood Marshall recommending that he vote to let stand a ruling requiring Monmouth County, N.J., to pay for inmates’ elective abortions.

“Quite honestly, I think that although all of this decision is well-intentioned, parts of it are ludicrous,” Kagan wrote. She said women generally have no right to have their abortions paid for, and “I do not see why prisoners should have such rights.”

The center’s report also criticized Kagan for supporting what it called a “too-narrow health exception” in legislation banning a procedure its opponents call partial-birth abortion. Her recommendations “would have had harsh consequences for women seeking abortions, and were unconstitutional under then-prevailing law,” it said.

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Also please know that it is a fact that, in 1997, then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was all about making sure partial-birth abortions were okay, and in 2001 he also opposed legislation that would protect born-alive failed abortions.  Nice guy, isn’t he?

So it is obvious and apparent and impossible to deny that this President of ours does not endorse abortion, but he seems to revel in its horror, all the while seeking to paint himself as being above the fray and hiding in some sort of twisted elitist intellectualism that normal folks like me just don’t get.  Liberal women may swoon at his being some sort of bastardized ‘champion of death’ who ‘feels their pain’ and supports their femininity, but quite honestly he is nothing more than a death-peddler who gives the appearance of a man who is “pro-choice” so he can score with  loose liberal women.  I mean, let’s be real: a liberal woman who would have a human baby scraped from her womb as a form of birth-control probably doesn’t need a lot of prompting to let some guy use her for a night.  But I digress.

Right now there is a call for some nominees to fill the Supreme Court spot left vacant by Supreme Court Justice Stevens.  Of course, Mr. Obama has been gathering some names for said position, and even Janet Napolitano has been named as a possible choice!  Um, is she a lawyer?  Oh, that’s right- she was Arizona’s AG from 1999 to 2002.  Yeah, she’d make a perfect SC Justice.  Just like she has made for a perfect Homeland Security Guru.  His list thus far is as follows:

Obama’s list of potential nominees includes: Elena Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general; Diane Wood, a U.S. appeals court judge in Chicago; Merrick Garland, a U.S. appeals court judge in Washington, D.C.; Sidney Thomas, a U.S. appeals court judge in San Francisco; and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

A more recent addition to the list is Judge Ann Claire Williams, who serves on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Conservatives have been wondering, and rightly so, if Mr. Obama will make sure his nominees are pro-death, just like he is.  In response to this, Mr. Obama has said:

“I don’t have litmus tests around any of these issues. But I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, including women’s rights. That is something that is going to be very important to me.”

Please note that in liberal-ese, “women’s rights” is always only about abortion.  It’s not about equality.  It’s not about dignity.  It is always, always about making sure a woman can kill an unborn human baby at her convenience and leisure.  (And don’t hand me that whole ‘What if my life is in danger?’ crap.  Name the last time you saw a woman carrying a sign saying to protect the right for a medical procedure that is horrifying and heartbreaking but is needed to save the life of the Mother?  Exactly.)

When asked if he could nominate someone who did not support a woman’s right to choose, Obama said: “I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction.”

He said he would not judge candidates on a single-issue abortion test.

And then a brief historical reference:

In a Democratic primary debate in November 2007, he was asked whether he would insist that a Supreme Court nominee support abortion rights. He said then: “I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy.”

This “right to privacy” is how the SCOTUS in 1973 ruled on Roe v. Wade, a twisted ruling if there ever was one.  Basically they decided that a fetus really wasn’t a human being, so it isn’t really murder to stop its life.  Go figure.  Mr. Obama is chomping at the bit, believe me, to get a liberal onto the SC.  He thinks it might be a battle, but let’s be realistic.  He thinks it will be tough to do.  Seriously, Mr. Obama?

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont stepped up to the plate to defend Mr. Obama and his tough decision to put a liberal onto such a “Conservative Supreme Court”:

“We have right now a very, very activist, conservative activist, Supreme Court,” Leahy said, citing recent decisions. “I think this does not reflect the American people but reflects more of a partisan agenda. I would hope that the president’s nominee can get us back away from that.”

So a “conservative, activist Supreme Court” doesn’t reflect the American people?  Hmm.  According to these stats, America is centrist-right and Conservative, Mr. Leahy.  It is you and your kind that do not represent the people, sir.  (Please don’t make me show you those poll numbers.)

We all know how this is going to play out: Obama will bring forth nominees.  Abortion will be the first topic discussed.  The true Conservatives will hate it.  The liberals will love it.  There will be fights, battles, articles, news stories, etc, and eventually a Supreme Court Justice will be appointed.  And while I stand on the Right side in the pro-Life camp, I fear we will soon be seeing yet another kool-aid drinking liberal who has blood on their hands taking their place amongst the Supreme Court.

You can call me a pessimist.  I prefer to call myself a realist.  I know who runs Bartertown.  And I know all about his agenda.  This is just one more piece to the puzzle that is the fundamental transformation he warned us all about.  We can still lift up in prayer all those women who feel like death is their only solution.

We’ll make it, though.  We always do.  No matter what.  Long Live the unborn Republic!

Extra Credit reading list:

The “Right” to an abortion according to the Constitution

Helium: Debate on abortion

Abortion- let’s have this discussion, then

The unborn, the living, and President Obama

Remember during the Presidential campaign in 2008, there was a question and answer session between Obama, McCain and Pastor Rick Warren.  Obama went first and answered questions one on one with Warren and he was asked about abortion, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”.  I, like many, was shocked to hear this answer from Obama, “Well I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”.  I will never forget that quote for the rest of my life and immediately thought, he was toast.  Surely the American people would not vote for a man who would come up with an answer like that.  Well, here we are.

So it is not above his pay-grade to force all Americans to answer to the government on choices for their health care; to bow down to every leader he feels deserves it; to ridicule, dismiss and refer childishly to Republicans or any one that publicly opposes his policies; to turn NASA into a fourth rate space program that will now need to ask for and buy seats from the Russians to travel to low earth orbit and the International Space Station; to declare to the world that you can attack us with your biological and chemical weapons and we won’t retaliate with nuclear weapons; to ignore the threat of Iran and insist that “based on mutual interests and mutual respect” he can talk Ahmadinejad into giving up the nuclear bomb pursuit and if not, just use the ever effective sanctions; to completely destroy the relationship between the U.S. and Israel with utter disrespect to Prime Minister Netanyahu; to take over car companies and banks; and to constantly use class warfare to gain credibility for his tax hikes, increased government spending and intrusion in our lives.

We know why he answered the life question with that most ridiculous answer, because he didn’t want to show the American people who he really was and still is.  Those that were informed knew that he walked hand in hand with the National Organization for Women, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and every other left leaning pro-choice group out there.  You know the groups that support government run health-care that pays for abortions, yet at their abortion rallies they hold up signs that say “Keep your laws off my body” .  Now that just makes so much sense doesn’t it?

If he said a baby gets human rights at conception, then abortion would be murder.  If he said at birth, then the live babies that survived botched late term abortions  left to die in hospital rooms would be murder and in Illinois, Obama voted to kill the bill that would have required medical facilities to provide care to babies in those circumstances.  He also stated that if one of his daughters were to make a “mistake” he did not want her to be “punished” with a baby.

So this is how he views life.  Can’t say when he thinks it begins, but he sure as heck knows that if a baby was a ”mistake” then a woman should be able to take care of the “problem”.   What I find unbelievable about all this is he claimed while campaigning for the highest office of our nation that it was above his pay grade to answer when he thought life began, yet he was voted into an office where he can and will continue to change the lives of all the living in the United States.

If one can’t understand what is precious about life, when it starts, and doesn’t understand the freedoms and liberties that a life needs to be successful, then they have no business being the leader of those of us living it.  The self-involved, egotistical, elitists running our country right now want to transform it into a government run catastrophe because they believe they know what is best for you, the individual.  They want tell you how to live, learn, eat and work.  They want to slowly erode away your freedoms for their restrictions and rules.  The only choice they want you to have is the option to abort a baby.

“I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, ‘But we want to pay for abortions.’ I said, ‘Mr. Chairman, that’s — we disagree. We don’t do it now, we’re not going to start.’

“‘But we think should,’” Stupak said Waxman told him.

“I said, ‘Well, I’m sorry but the House has spoken. We had that debate. We won 240-190. You forced the vote, a vote we won fair and square and we’re not gonna, this is what it is. If you want to move health care keep current law,’” Stupak continued.

You see, no matter what The Hyde Amendment says, Waxman wants to have Federal Funding, aka, our tax dollars, to go to pay for abortions.  For those of you unfamiliar with The Hyde Amendment, here it is as presented by the ACLU.

Henry Waxman’s words to Stupak will come back to haunt the Democrats, I can assure you.  Why would any pro-Life Democrats wish to put their seal of approval and vote for such an atrocity?  While I do  not endorse nor support the Democrat Party as a whole, I do admire these Democrats who are pro-Life and who are making a stand.  At the end of the day, the unborn are being protected, and who am I to question who does it and with what method?

Oh, but wait, there’s more!  While the HC Bill in question does not repeal The Hyde Amendment, it does offer this little gem:

However, under the Senate plan, anyone who buys insurance through the exchange will see $1 of his or her premium go toward reproductive health care, including abortion. Weiner said it is not the case that abortion service providers will get any of that premium money.

Hmmm.  So, let me see if I have this right.  No Federal monies are to be used for abortions as detailed by The Hyde Amendment, but, *ahem*, there is money being taken from the proposed new insurance exchange premiums that will go to some magical abortion slush fund, even thought it doesn’t really exist…?

Check this out:

But Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a liberal Democrat who says he wants federal funding for abortion, told Fox News that the Senate bill changes nothing about the “Hyde amendment,” which is decades-old law preventing taxpayer money from being used to pay for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or injury to the mother.

“We have the Hyde amendment that has been in place for a generation. I’m not crazy about it but it says there should be no federal funding for abortions. That’s the law as we sit here and that’ll be the law after health care passes,” Weiner said.

“What Congressman Stupak is saying is simply because an insurance policy is in that exchange somehow it’s getting federal dollars. That’s not the case. The fact is each individual person will be told that if they want to get an abortion they are not going to be able to use any subsidy, any plan that’s provided by the federal government to do that,” Weiner said.

“Congressman Stupak wants to go far beyond that and say anyone that offers insurance that is going to be in this exchange to even offer the services, it can’t even be in there, even though it gets zero federal dollars. That’s going much too far,” he said.

Now, I saw this dialogue on FOX News myself.  Rep. Weiner told Megyn Kelly himself that he and his staff hadn’t really seen the Bill to go over it.  And Rep. Weiner, you do know that The Hyde Amendment is from 1976.  It’s hardly been in place for “generations”.

Hmmm, again.

Hot Air: Younger voters trending pro-Life

————————

Here is my interview with Angie the Anti-theist. I told her I would not edit her answers in any way, which I have not. I will sit down in a while and comment to her answers in a later post, but for now here is the interview in full, un-edited.

//Do you call your self pro-choice?//

Yes. I support the notion of trusting women to make the best reproductive choices for themselves, with the help of their medical providers (and family & friends, if they choose). Pregnancy is a medical condition with varying degrees of risk, however I do not believe I have the right to tell another person how much risk they should be take on my behalf. Certainly, I do not believe I have the right to dictate by law what another person may do medically with their own body. We have not yet gotten to a point technologically where I find it useful to discuss how we’ll handle things in the future, when abortion will not be a woman’s only option for ending a pregnancy within her body. For now, it is and so it must remain legal.

//Do you believe that people should have the choice to believe whatever they want to believe no matter how much you disagree?//

I find this an oddly worded question, so let me answer what I can. I don’t know how “choice” people have in what they believe. Environment, natural level of curiosity, exposure to different ideas, knowledge about science and the physical world – all of these can impact a person’s *ability* to believe in something. I don’t think I could believe in Jesus or the Bible again if I tried. It just doesn’t *seem* believable to me, in the same way that I’m sure Mohammad traveling by flying horse seems unbelievable to you. You probably do not “choose” whether or not you believe that.

Now as to rights and beliefs – I think thoughts are someone’s personal territory. I don’t believe in thought crimes or thought sins. I find some beliefs or values more distasteful than others, as I’m sure you do also. That does not mean I wish to police anyone’s thoughts or infringe on their rights of belief. Hardly. I merely want the same courtesy extended to those of us in the minority who do NOT believe in any god.

//Do you believe that religion should be outlawed, or regulated in some way?//

No. I believe in a strong separation between church and state. I wish for all people, regardless of belief, to be seen equally under the law. By this, I mean that I do not support religious exemptions either. In several states, there are exemptions within the child abuse and neglect laws which allow for parents to medically neglect their child by depriving needed treatment, if it is motivated by religious belief. While I respect and value the rights of individuals to believe as they will, I do NOT recognize any rights for them to deprive their children of needed medical care based on their beliefs, or to be treated differently under the law. With a nation of so many beliefs, it would be nearly impossible to have a cohesive legal system if we continually make exemptions for this group or that. One law for all, but your beliefs are none of the government’s business.

//If your son decided he wanted to pursue a religion when he is a teenager, would you support his choice or fight against it?//

I’ve done videos on this at http://www.youtube.com/user/AngieAntiTheist and on being an atheist parent in general. I am honest with my son, meaning that I both tell him my views and make opposing views available to him. I could only wish all parents took a similar model of trusting their children. If my son decides to pursue religion, I will encourage him to study it with vigor and to always check his new beliefs against his core values. I do not want my son to be my clone. I want him to be happy, healthy, self-reliant, charitable, loving & loved: The same things every parent wants for their children. If he finds that in religion rather than through secular means, so be it.

//You say you did not do this for attention, yet you said you wanted to de-mystify abortion; wouldn’t you want as much attention on this as possible for that?//

Honestly I had no idea this would go on so long. I thought the entire abortion would take a few hours, as I’d read in a few stories. I was mostly talking to my friends, who I talk to about everything. I am an extremely open person. When I went on psychiatric medication for depression this year, I blogged about it and tweeted about it. When I was facing eviction, I talked about that too. I talk about growing up in a cult and being a sexual abuse survivor and about all the things no one seems to talk about. It is my healing process from the childhood of secrecy and abuse I went through. In the process, I find other people are helped also. I get countless letters thanking me, for each subject I raise, for talking about something so hard to talk about. This was no different for me, but the reaction has been substantially different.

Everything I talk about is with the goal of demistifying it or reducing stigma, whether that’s abortion or mental illness.

//Is there a point during pregnancy in which you believe abortion is wrong? If so why?//

See the rest of the interview here.

Related articles of interest:

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/10/abortion-okay-lets-have-this-discussion-then/

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/12/abortion-a-god-given-and-constitutional-right/

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2010/02/pro-abortion-group-we-believe-abortion-can-be-an-act-of-love/

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/11/planned-parenthood-director-quits-after-watching-abortion-ultrasound/

From Stand True President Bryan Kemper, via email to Donald Borsch Jr.  Prepare to be horrified and angered.

——————————

A new web site called 45 Million Voices is attempting to collect 45 million stories from women about how wonderful the experience of having their own child killed was. They want to give a voice to celebrate every abortion that has taken place since Roe v Wade.

I have a feeling that many of you reading this are gagging about now, and possibly ready to lose your lunch; that is how I felt when I first read about this new web site. I actually waited a day before I even started to write about this because I was so angry.

The web site appears to have been started by Jennifer Klozik DeCapua, a pro-abortion blogger who goes under the name “Righteous Mom”. In her vision statement she posts the definition of both the words righteous and mom.

righ·teous \ˈrī-chəs\ : 1: acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin 2 a: morally right or justifiable b: arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality 3 slang : genuine, excellent

It is very clear that she wants to try to justify abortion as something morally right and completely free from any kind of stigma or negativity. She really is pro-abortion as she believes that abortion can be an act of love, something she includes in the “what we believe” section of her 45 Million Voices web site.

In her bio she claims, “For the past 8 years righteous mom has worked in abortion care and could not be prouder of it. During this time, she has become more involved in activism and reducing the stigma of abortion.”

I find it appalling that anyone would call the destruction of a human life “care,” let alone be proud of it. I want to ask Jennifer why she has to work so hard on reducing the stigma of abortion if there is nothing wrong with it? Why is it that most pro-abortion organizations like to use language like “reduce abortion” or “eliminate the need for abortion” if there is nothing wrong with it?

The mainstream public organizations like Planned Parenthood want people to think they really want to make abortion rare and reduce the need for it. But it is sites like Righteous Mom or her newest project, 45 Million Voices that show us the truth: abortion is tantamount to a sacrament to them.

45 Million Voices is a project that does nothing but glorify and promote the killing of women’s children by asking them to post a positive story about it. They want to tell the world how wonderful it is, even calling it an act of love to destroy your baby.

I believe this is one of the most asinine and deplorable pro-abortion web sites I have ever seen. It does, however, destroy any argument I have ever heard claiming that “no one likes abortion” in fact this site thrives on those who not only like abortion, but want to celebrate it.

“45 Million Voices is a nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating the stigma, shame, and silence surrounding abortion through education, empowerment, and sisterhood.”

Here are a few of the belief statements they have on their site:

“We believe when a woman decides to have an abortion she is doing the very best she can”

“We believe abortion is a normal choice that women make”

“We believe that women have been terminating unintended pregnancies for thousands of years and will continue to do so with or with out the support of their family and society”

“We believe that an abortion can be an act of love”

So on top of the atrocity of celebrating abortion, they are claiming that it is the best thing for women who have them. They say for a woman to pay someone to rip her child limb from limb or suction her child out of her womb is “normal”.

“An act of love”: I can hardly type those words into my computer without tearing up. Beyond all of the arguments for or against abortion, for someone to claim this heinous act as “love” is heartbreaking.

What’s next: are they going to suggest that if we don’t like how our children come out, we can just perform a post-natal abortion and mercifully kill the children after they are born? You may think that is just too far-fetched, but it is already being suggested.

This morning I read an article about post-natal abortions on the Radio Free Europe web site; here is an excerpt from that article:

“The author, Aleksandr Nikonov, used the word “debil” — a deeply offensive term in Russian — to characterize such children. He argued that parents should have the right to euthanize newborns diagnosed with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities.

The article, which ran under the headline “Finish Them Off, So They Don’t Suffer,” went on to describe what Nikonov termed “postnatal abortion” as an act of mercy.”

This strikes so close to home to me as I was once considered partially retarded; I even won three blue ribbons in the Special Olympics in the sixth grade. I have been pronounced dead and was brought back to life as an infant, suffering from Spinal Meningitis.

The truth is that we have seen some of the most radical and deadly times in human history in just the past several hundred years. We have seen the dehumanization, enslavement and torture of a people simply because of their skin color.

We have seen a nation declare themselves the ultimate race as they rounded up, imprisoned, tortured and attempted to annihilate a whole people group simply because of their nationality.

Now we are seeing another people group being eliminated by hundreds of thousands around the world every day: being categorized as un-human by virtue of their age. In America alone we surgically destroy almost 4,000 of these human beings every day and chemically kill countless more.

Now we have people who want to celebrate this mass destruction of human life. We have web sites dedicated to reducing the stigma of murdering children and praising this adorable practice as an act of love.

I refuse to be silent when the killing of children is praised. I know if there were a web site. celebrating the “choices” the German soldiers made as they slaughtered the Jews, most of the world would be outraged.

If someone started to post stories about slave owners who felt it was the best decision they ever made to buy and torture black people, there would be riots in the streets.

Why are we not as horrified when someone honors, celebrates and even praises the abortion holocaust? I, for one, am horrified and I hope you are too. I hope and pray you will see how far this lunacy is going and realize we must stand up now more then ever to be a voice against child-killing.

If we continue to be silent, apathetic and indifferent about the killing of children in the womb, there very well could be a time when you are considered a non-human because of your “silly faith in God”. If you don’t believe that could happen, just do a Google search for the word Auschwitz; I bet there were a lot of people who never believed that to be possible either.

For Christ I stand,
Bryan Kemper

From AP

White supremacists and other such haters are furious that the plan started so long ago by Margaret Sanger to implement “sterilization and racial purification”, has been met head-on by pro-Lifers who want to stop the slaughter of unborn black Americans.

The eyebrow-raising ads featuring a young black child are an effort by the anti-abortion movement to use race to rally support within the black community. The reaction from black leaders has been mixed, but the “Too Many Aborted” campaign, which so far is unique to only Georgia, is drawing support from other anti-abortion groups across the country.

“It’s ingenious,” said the Rev. Johnny Hunter, national director of the Life Education and Resource Network, a North Carolina-based anti-abortion group aimed at African-Americans that operates in 27 states. “This campaign is in your face, and nobody can ignore it.”

The billboards went up last week in Atlanta and urge black women to “get outraged.”

However, no good deed goes unchallenged and Planned Parenthood has shot back with this:

Anti-abortion advocates say the procedure has always been linked to race. They claim Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge Planned Parenthood denies.

“The language in the billboard is using messages of fear and shame to target women of color,” said Leola Reis, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Georgia. “If we want to reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies, we need to work as a community to make sure we get quality affordable health care services to as many women and men as possible.”

Spelman College professor,  Beverly Sheftall, considers the whole billboard campaign “a gimmick”.

“To use racist arguments to try to bait black people to get them to be anti-abortion is just disgusting,” said Guy-Sheftall, who teaches women’s history and feminist thought at the historically black women’s college.

“These one-issue approaches that are not about saving the black family or black children, it’s just a big distraction,” she said. “Many black people don’t know who Margaret Sanger is and could care less.”

Knowing that the liberals would seek to divide us by race and say this abortion thing is an “African-American issue” and white folks shouldn’t get involved, it is disturbing to consider that if the black communities in America don’t start to care who Margaret Sanger is and what Planned Parenthood really thinks about them, their very future as an American people might be in serious jeopardy.  Black, white, red, yellow, brown, purple…we are all Americans, period.  Enough is enough.

To those who would publicly espouse abortion as a right, but secretly desire the destruction of any race in America, I would say:  Never think you can threaten any Americans with genocide.  We beat your Hitler once, and we will surely do it again.

I read this article by Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post and thought it was a good one to share.  If you take away the angry drumming beat of the feminists, you get some common sense.  Enjoy the Super Bowl!!

Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are

By Sally Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010

I’ll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won’t endear me to the “Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep,” otherwise known as DOLL, but I’ll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow’s pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We’re always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.

“Are you saving yourself for marriage?” Tebow was asked last summer during an SEC media day.

“Yes, I am,” he replied.

The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.

“I think y’all are stunned right now!” he said. “You can’t even ask a question!”

That’s how far we’ve come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn’t shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

Obviously Tebow can make people uncomfortable, whether it’s for advertising his chastity, or for wearing his faith on his face via biblical citations painted in his eye-black. Hebrews 12:12, his cheekbones read during the Florida State game: “Therefore strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees.” His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”

Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

Other articles of interest:

The Super-Sized Census Boondoggle

Look who’s opposing EPA’s war on carbon now

Landrieu to Republicans: Shut up about my Louisiana Purchase

Video: If famous filmmakers directed the Super Bowl

THE OBVIOUS DEFICIT-CLOSERS

Gosh, you got us now, oh wise liberal anonymous poster!  Yep, all of us pro-Lifers have a secret underground network where we plot death upon all pro-Deathers and seek to ever overturn the infamous Roe v. Wade decision wrought by an incompetent SCOTUS.  Yep, you found us out.  Oh my, now whatever shall we do as pro-Lifers?

I won’t post the entire article here, as I do not wish to sully the integrity of this site with such vitriolic drivel, but I wish to point out the closing paragraph to “Angry Mouse”‘s tirade.  It goes as follows:

“Make no mistake: this is a war. There is no middle. There can be no compromise. The “compromises” only lead to more deaths. And those who fight on the side of the extremists — who give money to their organizations, who vote for their laws, who use their language and tools of terror — all have blood on their hands.”

Funny that.  I could have sworn she, (let’s be real- only a female liberal would post such anger towards pro-Lifers), was speaking here about the pro-Death movement she advocates and evangelizes, and not the pro-Lifers.

Is it true that some misguided pro-Lifers have done the unspeakable and killed pro-Deathers?  It is very true.  I will not refute this.  I will not even defend these actions, because it is simply not what God would want from any pro-Lifer.  (Yes, I said God.  Deal with it.)  And even if these pro-Lifers were atheists, their moral compasses were very off-center, and no one that I know in the pro-Life movement would applaud their actions.  As a 100% pro-Lifer, death is not exactly looked upon as honorable by me.  Truth be told, it is a shame that, say, George Tiller was killed by a pro-Lifer.  It is.  Yet I must wonder aloud how many babies his murder actually saved.  That was probably a harsh way to evaluate the death of a partial-birth abortionist, but there it is nonetheless.

The writer of this DKos article also takes her facts, (cough), from Wikipedia.  (Yeah, always a reliable source if you’re a liberal.)  She cites 8 deaths caused by pro-Lifers.  8.  Count ‘em.  8.

How many deaths have been caused by their pro-Deathers?  Millions.  And that number keeps growing.  8 compared to millions.  Sounds like good old-fashioned liberal mathematics right there.  They cry over 8 deaths of innocent people, and when we cry over millions of deaths of innocent babies, (VERY innocent babies), by their hands, we are somehow labeled as being the terrorists.

Go figure.

Long Live the Republic.