Bill Johnson, who claims to be the only “Reagan conservative”, non-establishment candidate in Kentucky’s GOP primary for U.S. Senate, may be picking up steam, if recent polls are any indication. An independent poll conducted by a California firm on or about December 16 shows Johnson leading in one of four Kentucky regions and leading among all women statewide. Overall, the poll has Johnson at 17% which the Johnson campaign claims is consistent with internal polling also showing him at 17% statewide.

After release of the internal poll, Johnson told Joe Arnold of WHAS-11 News in Louisville:

I have retained a fundraiser and will be focusing on that activity in January. I can win this primary with $300,000 and will not rest until May 18th. For once, the voters will have a true choice independent of money, power, status or any other factor.

The surge in Johnson’s numbers occurred prior to recent problems in the Rand Paul campaign and may be due partly to newspaper ad inserts going out across the state promoting Johnson as the “Reagan conservative” alternative to the former Democrat Trey Grayson and the libertarian-leaning Rand Paul.

Governor Sarah Palin has an Op-Ed today at Newsminer which gives a very basic overview of the process by which her administration and the Legislature are searching for a way to bring affordable energy to as many Alaskans as possible. The op-ed mainly addresses the issue of an in-state gasline to help Alaskans see lower energy costs and offers information on the current step in the process, the review stage, which was funded by the Legislature per her request. The governor is also working toward an interstate gasline as well as development of the infrastructure necessary for gas liquefaction for purposes of export via shipping ports.

The issue of energy is both critical and complex. It’s refreshing to see that Governor Palin and the Alaska Legislature seem committed to making determinations about energy that are based on energy itself, actual data and the overall impact for Alaskan businesses and consumers, not politics, ideology and entangling interests as we see in Washington with Obama’s “cap and trade”.

While Obama promises skyrocketing electricity rates and creates a government slush fund that will result in government actually becoming dependent on pollution for the tax relief he promises to voters (I often wonder why so many voters bought that promise on tax cuts but ignored the promise on skyrocketing electricity), Sarah Palin and the Alaska Legislature are keeping it practical. The gasline agenda in Alaska will be implemented only after thorough review and in consideration of the long-term impact for Alaska’s citizens and businesses. These projects will stand or fall on their own merits, even independently of each other in terms of policy.

Thanks for keeping it real, Alaska.

Governor Sarah Palin has vetoed $28.6 million in stimulus funds, the portion of the stimulus package that included a mandate for local governments to adopt federally defined building codes. If she had accepted this funding, it would have been an unconstitutional usurpation of power from local government. Governor Palin’s position is that as Governor she does not have the authority, from a Constitutional standpoint, to infringe upon the power of the people and their local governments in community planning.

From Governor Palin’s press release:

“Alaskans and our communities have a long history of independence and opposing many mandates from Washington, D.C.,” Governor Palin said. “This principle of maximum self-government for local communities is also set out in our constitution. There isn’t a lot of support for the federal government to coerce Alaska communities to adopt building codes, but lawmakers can always exercise checks and balances by overriding my veto.

“Our 18 boroughs and unified home-rule municipalities, 145 incorporated cities, and individual Alaskans will continue to be free to fully exercise their discretion regarding local building codes. I do not support coercing our local communities to adopt building codes, which then act as a mandatory tax on Alaskans building or renovating homes or businesses.”

I do believe she’s citing Article 10, there, of the Alaska Constitution which provides for “maximum local self-government with a minimum of local government units”.

Ya gotta love a woman who loves her Constitution, particularly when she is the primary agent in charge of defending it.

Some have criticized Governor Palin’s reasoning. “My disappointment is that Sarah Palin hasn’t paid attention or looked closely enough to the Missouri model,” Senator Lesil McGuire said referring to the Department of Energy’s decision to allow local governments in Missouri to retain their building codes.

Governor Palin did consult the Department of Energy on the matter and had this to say about their assurances:

“While I was encouraged by that acknowledgment, I cannot in good conscience agree to use the full authority of state government to ‘promote’ and advocate on behalf of Washington, D.C., that our communities adopt the building codes or their equivalent.”

It has to do with power. Does the power come down from D.C to the people of Alaska? If Palin had not vetoed it, the ultimate decision would have belonged to the feds. Despite their assurances, it was a risk she refused to take. With this veto, Palin has not made as strong a statement about spending as she has about freedom. Freedom is priceless. Is your freedom worth $28.6 million? Well?

Sometimes it’s tough to do the right thing. Palin is going to get hammered for this in the liberal blogosphere and from the proponents of big government in Alaska. They’re going to be writing about the economic impact, but this is a critical step she has taken to preserve the right of the people to self-rule that has been afforded them by their state constitution. They’ll talk about Missouri until you’re sick of hearing about it, but we know we can’t leave our freedom up to agents of the federal government promising us they’ll honor it. It’s far better to have a governor willing to sign her name to guarantee it — to leave no doubt — because her constitution demands it.

Folks, this is why I support Sarah Palin. She is going to get hammered for this and it will be twisted nine different ways, if not ninety. How many people are going to really “get this”? People are hurting economically in Alaska and she knows it, but her job is to protect their freedom no matter how tough things get economically. I don’t know about you, but I value my freedom so highly that I appreciate leadership like this, particularly in these troubled times when so many are willing to sell it for dollars.

The Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development has a boatload of information on the operations of communities in Alaska including this document on Home Rule. Before you all go whacko on the meaning of this veto, please, do some homework on it, will you?

Incidentally, Governor Palin also used her line-item veto power to cut $80 million from appropriations bills. I have no opinion on this because I haven’t done any research on it, but since 80 is always bigger than 28.6, I’ll be awfully curious if there is way more talk about the stimulus veto than there is about the appropriations veto, won’t you?

UPDATE: Governor Palin has an Op-Ed in today’s NEWSMINER regarding energy

There seems to be a vague notion among non-Catholics, and sometimes even among Catholics themselves, that somehow the lack of a statement from the Pope himself on the decision by Notre Dame University to honor President Obama indicates that he is either supportive of the decision or that the issue of whether or not the President should have been honored by a Catholic institution is a debatable matter. This could not be further from the truth. It concerns me in watching how supporters of Fr. Jenkins have framed their dialogue in interviews, whenever they mention Pope Benedict in relation to this issue, that the uninformed could potentially come to view the Church as a somewhat disorganized group of people who do things willy-nilly unless the Pope clears things up for everyone, as if the Pope is the only person in the Catholic Church with any authority whatsoever. It is helpful to examine how the authority of the Church works in practice.

We can see the basic model of the Church yet in its infancy in the Book of Acts, Chapter 15 where a dispute about circumcision appears and the matter is taken to the Council of Jerusalem. Even though this was a serious matter of doctrine which was of concern to the entire Church worldwide (not merely a local issue of whether or not to obey previously defined teaching), it was St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, who pronounced the teaching on the matter per the instruction of St. Peter who was historically the first pope. The office then held by St. Peter which is now held by Pope Benedict XVI is one of being “first among equals”. Because the issue of circumcision was not something that had previously been defined, it required formal definition by the “apostles and elders” who were then seated in Jerusalem. In fact, St. Paul traveled over three hundred miles from Antioch to Jerusalem for a ruling that would become binding upon the entire Church. Even so, the official pronouncement was made by St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem wherein the Council was seated, and the decision was final.

What if, after the decision on the matter had already been promulgated, there rose up disobedience to it in the Church at the local level? That disobedience would be comparable to the disobedience which occurred at Notre Dame yesterday in that there is no excuse for it. The teaching on this matter was pronounced long before Barack Obama was even elected as President of the United States. It was not a debatable issue before his election as President and neither his glowing personality, high intellect or even his work among the poor, regardless of how noble his intentions may have been, could possibly excuse disobedience.

Again, there should have been no dispute whatsoever as the instruction had already previously been issued by the full United States Conference of Catholic Bishops even before Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States. That instruction, Catholics in Political Life says, in part:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

What is a “fundamental moral principle”? Had there been some confusion on Fr. Jenkins’ part as to whether or not President Obama has acted “in defiance of our fundamental moral principles”, his responsibility would have been to consult the local bishop for an authoritative interpretation, as Bishop John D’Arcy, Jenkins’ local bishop, explains.

The Church has been very clear already that certain issues consisently trump others. This is clear in the USCCB’s document Faithful Citizenship though some wish to distort it because their priorities differ from God’s.

If you really want a statement from the Pope on this, we can provide one that is objective and timely and that covers all persons regardless of who they are and what circumstances they may find themselves in. On May 4, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI affirmed non-negotiables in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In that address, he noted the growth in recognition by the world community of human rights after we experienced tremendous upheaval and suffering during two World Wars. These rights do include many of the rights championed by President Obama, to the President’s credit. Pope Benedict noted, however, that these rights now almost universally recognized across the world actually spring from even more basic rights — the “right to life” and the “freedom of conscience and religion” — both of which are now under assault by President Obama with his pledge to reinstate funding of the UNFPA (who can bear it?) and his proposal to take away the freedom of conscience of health care workers. (Again, who can bear it?)

Priorities, folks.

It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Pope to address a local issue specifically when he speaks volumes on these things for the world at large — issues that apply universally (“Catholic” means “universal”, folks.) to all of humankind. President Obama, despite the fact that he is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, is not so special that he is exempt from what is fundamentally wrong for all of humanity. Please. Give us a break from the calls to have the Pope give the proverbial time of day to those who suppose that Obama is unique among all men in that he is exempt from being required to defend life and conscience at the most fundamental levels.

As Bishop D’Arcy indicates in the statement shared on the diocesan website, his authority on the matter was not appropriately sought by Fr. Jenkins, President of Notre Dame.

There are tribunals in the Church which deal with disagreements on interpretation. When all other appeals have been exhausted, the matter is left to the Vatican. Does the Pope make a decision on these individual matters? Nope. That is left to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. That’s the Vatican’s highest court and its Prefect is Archbishop Raymond Burke. Appropriately, because of the scandal involved in this matter with a President who is truly unique in that Office and with Notre Dame having the reputation of being the premiere Catholic university in America, Archbishop Burke issued a public statement on the matter. He did not disappoint.

This morning I was dismayed to learn about Obama’s statements on abortion yesterday which are a far cry from what we’ve heard from him consistently up until now on this issue. Or are they? Those who keep close tabs on these things are able to read between the lines and recognize immediately that this is just more propaganda or, as they call it, “messaging strategy“.

The president may seem to have backed away from the famous statement he made during the campaign on the question of when the right of personhood begins for a baby. He said the answer to that question is “above my pay grade” — a remarkable statement coming from a man who has fought harder than any other lawmaker to make sure that even already-born infants who have survived a botched abortion should not, under any circumstances, be considered persons. (Even Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton have more decency as they are on record voting in opposition to this infanticide.) Let’s be clear. The answer “above my pay grade” is most consistent with the Libertarian Party’s position on abortion, not the view Obama has fought diligently to advance which is that even an already-born infant is definitely NOT a “person” under the law. Only the most ignorant among us would buy the idea that Barack Obama is a Libertarian on any issue, let alone the personhood status of infants.

Now he is saying that abortion is a “moral issue” (no longer above his pay grade?) but he doesn’t define what he means by that. When the most pro-abortion president in history, the only one to ever go even so far as to allow infanticide, says that abortion is a “moral issue” and then indicates he will not limit it in any way except through pregnancy prevention, arguably the most logical inference we can garner is that he has elevated the provision of abortion (not the denial of it) to the level of “morality”. Considering how passionately he has fought to make sure hospitals can deny medical care for infants surviving a botched abortion, I’m not surprised that he is now using the word “moral” as a keyword. No matter how much we might like to believe otherwise, every time a law is passed, morality is being legislated.

Okay, so he said he is not going to make the Freedom of Choice Act a high priority even though he told Planned Parenthood during the campaign , “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”. So, what happened? Did he change his mind? No, of course not. See, the pro-aborts have learned that conservatives have mobilized so actively against FOCA that they can no longer hope to push it through as one act. They have to do it incrementally. Barack Obama can look into the camera, er, um, teleprompter, and say with all honesty to the American people that FOCA is off the table but only in the context of being an official, all-consuming act that will remove all abortion restrictions. FOCA is still among the highest priorities of the Administration. It is merely being enacted in piecemeal fashion to go under the radar of the ignorant.

Those on the Left know how to use propaganda to fool people into thinking they are moderates, or even conservative, on any number of issues. Don’t buy it, America.

““““““““““““`
Book Recommendation:
Posters, Propaganda, and Persuasion in Election Campaigns Around the World and Through History

Note: Please see an update at the end of this article for information on how to be a part of the solution to the agenda described herein.

Tonight, I read the passage below to my ten-year-old daughter and asked her what the speaker, whom I did not name, is referring to. Her answer follows.

“It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.”

My daughter seemed to know immediately what the quote above is in reference to, as did her two older brothers when I asked them. “Abortion,” she said.

I told her it’s not about abortion. It is a quote from President Barack Obama on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

My ten-year-old sees the obvious parallel. Why can’t he?

There is not only a parallel but a connection. These two things — the Holocaust of the Jews and abortion — have a point of convergence. Allow me to explain.

Few people realize that before Hitler became famous for promoting eugenics, it was a popular idea around the world, even here in America, to study eugenics primarily to bring about “racial purity”. It was only after the Holocaust was revealed as the horrific evil it was that eugenics became taboo in America. After the Holocaust, eugenicists as individuals either abandoned their views or advanced their ideas under the radar depending on how passionate they were about it. This is where the birth control movement really gained ground in its popularity as strictly a “human rights” issue as opposed to what it had been before — a tool for “racial purification”. Today, a woman by the name of Margaret Higgins Sanger is credited with the title of “Father” of the birth control movement and with advancing the cause of artificial birth control as an issue of human rights.

Margaret Sanger (photo, left) began as a nurse who, in 1912, started writing articles for a Socialist periodical entitled The Call. Her column, What Every Girl Should Know, was perhaps the first ever to call for a “right to birth control”. Since every Christian Church in the world at that time condemned the use of artificial birth control (the Catholic Church is the only one left that still forbids its use), Sanger had her work cut out for her. She fought the entire Christian Church on it, both Protestant and Catholic, but particularly the Catholic Church since she had grown up in a Catholic family and, like so many fallen away Catholics, resented the Catholic Church’s teachings and the zeal of her Catholic parents. Sanger’s mother had died of tuberculosis, but Sanger blamed her death on the fact that her mother had borne many children. Instead of seeking to address the problem of tuberculosis, Sanger set out to find a “cure” for birth. Her racist views melded with her disdain for child-rearing and resulted in the hideous agenda she is now famous for.

Prior to 1921, immigrants from around the world were pouring into America by the hundreds of thousands every year. Beginning in that year, though, the government began to limit immigration. By 1925, there were strict quotas on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States and the quota varied by country. Racism was rampant in America at the time and Sanger was quite vocal about her disdain for minorities whom she called “human weeds”. Sanger even proposed that rewards be given to those who would allow themselves to be sterilized for racial “purification”.

While a “right to birth control” was a novel and somewhat unheard of idea when Sanger began writing about it, eugenics was not. Many advocated it, albeit in various forms. It is helpful, then, to understand exactly what eugenics is. The term “eugenics” is attributed to Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who defined it in 1883 as:

“[T]he science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding.”

“Better breeding”, of course, can mean many different things to many different people. Sanger used the immigration issue to advance her agenda.

Certainly, Sanger was very much in support of the immigration quotas enacted by the federal government. In “A Plan for Peace”, 1932, Margaret Sanger wrote the following as a goal:

“[T]o keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance
of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others [!!!] in this class barred by immigration laws of 1924.”

One of the most interesting facts about Margaret Sanger, a fact that most people do not realize, is that Margaret Higgins Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world, which has clinics that are generally located in minority neighborhoods.

Margaret Sanger represents one clear and undeniable connection between the eugenics and racism which spanned the globe during the Twenties and gave rise to the Holocaust in Europe as well as the Holocaust we now have in America, primarily among minorities and the poor. Wouldn’t Margaret be proud of what Planned Parenthood has been able to accomplish in her name?

Yes, they still do it in her name……….and proudly so. Just this month, Planned Parenthood honored Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the Margaret Sanger Award. In her remarks at the ceremony, Clinton said:

“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”

Yes, there are some courageous folks out there who are angry with her about this, thanks be to God, including Representative Chris Smith who addressed it in a committee hearing later. How ironic that the first African-America president is also a darling of Planned Parenthood. In fact, he pledged to them that his first act as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, a measure that would wipe away all restrictions on abortion and require the taxpayer to fund them. Instead, the movement opted to bring about FOCA incrementally. Obama’s removal of conscience protection for health care workers is a major part of this incremental, yet draconian, change in policy of our government. His disdain for the Catholic Church may not be as overt as Margaret Sanger’s but it is far more dangerous as he is now “leader of the free world” and considers the Church to be no more than a gnat that he can slap at.

Why would an African-American president support Planned Parenthood? Ignorance, I suppose. Who knows? Still, the facts are the facts. The explanations will have to come from the man himself.

I was both proud and unsurprised that my daughter recognizes that Obama was describing abortion in America whether he realizes it or not. A person’s a person, no matter how despised; and people, the most innocent people of all, are still killed in the name of eugenics and racial purity — you can make a donation to Planned Parenthood and earmark it to be used for an African-American abortion – and it is still done in the name of health care. Yes, it’s all true…….but thank the Lord we know the truth and have been graced with the ability to speak out against it. We will never forget the Holocaust of the Jews, and we will never abandon those who are being sacrificed on the altars of Margaret Sanger’s death houses.

For more information about Planned Parenthood, visit STOPP International.
For information about what you can do to help women choose life for their babies, please visit this page with listings of Crisis Pregnancy Outreach groups at Priests for Life.
Don’t forget to register to vote………and always…….ALWAYS vote Pro-Life!!!!

UPDATE: The article I wrote above is about the racist roots and practices of Planned Parenthood. If you will click on the link in the article about earmarking abortions for minorities it will take you to the site of a group called Live Action which has documented the willingness of Planned Parenthood to accept donations to kill minority babies. Live Action is a group of very brave college kids who are making a real impact on the funding of Planned Parenthood through state and local government by exposing their practices through undercover video. They need our help, though. Please be a part of the solution by supporting Live Action. Here is the link to their home page.

Lisa Graas is a former crisis pregnancy counselor; pro-life activist; and a disabled mother of four.

“““““““““““““““`
Book Recommendations:
Margaret Sanger: Father of modern society / by Elasah Drogin
The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War
Abortion the Silent Holocaust

In what is arguably one of the most blatant pieces of propaganda yet issued from the Left, Bob Beckel, an Obama mouthpiece who frequently appears on Fox News to give the President’s point of view on issues, has declared that the Culture War has “all but disappeared”.

Here’s just one of several outrageous comments made in Beckel’s latest column at Fox News.

[T]he old right-wing wedge issues of years past are met with a deafening silence in the body politic of 2009. Let us all give thanks.

“Deafening silence”???? That statement demonstrates clearly that this administration, for which Beckel is paid big bucks to defend in the media, is either completely out of the loop, off its rocker, or, as I initially suggested, engaged in deliberate propaganda to suppress dissent.

In fact, the response from Christians and like-minded Americans to this administration’s policies on social issues has been so loud as to make one deaf because it cripples the eardrums. Here are three huge examples of deafening volume from the Catholic Church in America.

Example One: On March 16, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, represented by its President, Cardinal Francis George, responded as follows to the President’s intention to deny the freedom of conscience of American health care workers:

As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we are deeply concerned that
such an action on the government’s part would be the first step in moving our country from democracy to despotism.

Perhaps Mr. Beckel thinks the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ warning that we are moving toward tyranny is irrelevant? No, Beckel knows better than that. The administration knows that if they say something loudly enough and often enough, people will start to believe it whether or not it is true and that is the case with Beckel’s audacious claim that the Culture War is over. I think he’ll have a hard time saying the Church is irrelevant when the Catholic hospitals start closing because of this draconian policy.

Example Two: Catholic outrage over Notre Dame’s honoring of Barack Obama breaks the eardrums with its volume. American Papist reports. Over 330,000 people have signed a petition demanding that the honor be revoked.

Example Three: Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn delivered a rousing speech at the 2009 Gospel of Life Convention in regard to the current state of our nation in which he stated, much to the delight of many Catholics, “We are at war”. This is the first time in my sixteen years as a Catholic and political activist (I became both at the same time, not by coincidence) that I recall hearing a bishop declare war on evil so boldly. As Bishop Finn explained, Christians on earth are the Church Militant. It has been so since the beginning of the Church when St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

Despite what our President and his minions would have us believe, this “spiritual wickedness” coming from the highest office in the most powerful nation on earth is not being ignored! We are, indeed, at war against wickedness (that is, the policies of destruction, not the man himself) like never before. We know this not because our bishops tell us so but because we, unlike members of Congress, actually read the legislation. When our bishops stand up and declare the war we know rages more viciously than ever before, we are not “awakened” to some previously unknown idea but are rather RELIEVED that they are speaking out and expressing the truth as we already see it. Evil is not merely oozing but flooding from the Oval Office and the halls of Congress.

Mr. Beckel, you aren’t fooling anyone with your propaganda. We are watching and we are not amused.

“““““““““““““““`

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, opines that Sarah Palin made “an eloquent case for choice” during her speech at the annual banquet of Vanderburgh County Right to Life. Below is the comment I left in response to her claim.

~~~

If you were writing in the 17th century, I would certainly understand why you might be uncertain about when human life begins. There is no excuse anymore for anyone to say we don’t know. Technology and science show us the answer. It’s obvious when human life begins. Dear lady, this is the 21st century and we have known the answer to this question for many many years.

Women experiencing unintended pregnancies necessarly experience a struggle, but the main reason for this struggle is not because she wants to kill. It is for other reasons that she feels trapped — money, lack of family support, stigma, or perhaps a cancerous uterus can require intervention. Many things can enter into the equation that will make a woman do the unthinkable, but the desire to kill another human being isn’t one of those reasons.

Abortion is proof that society has failed women. What reasons did Palin give for considering abortion? Certainly the desire to kill another person wasn’t among them. No, it was what so many other women feel — a lack of support — a feeling of being forced to do something she really didn’t want to do. That is a failure not on Palin’s part or any other woman’s part who considers abortion. It’s a failure of society to support women who are faced with unintended pregnancy.

So what happens to these women? They decide, based on how much suffering they are willing to endure, whether or not to let this child live. (FYI: In the case of the cancerous uterus, it is morally permissible to remove the uterus to save the woman, even if the child dies, provided that there is no intent to kill involved. That is indirect killing, not direct murder.) How many women intentionally get pregnant for the reason that they want to have an abortion and kill the child? None. There is always another motive besides killing involved in the decision. No woman desires to kill……..but in the 21st century, we all know, because science now proves it, that it really is killing.

So, the woman who can’t bear the pressure goes to have her child killed. Society has failed her. She does the unthinkable because she feels trapped into doing so.

I have counseled many women considering abortion via a lay ministry of the Catholic Church. They all wanted life for their children but were nagged by what our culture tells them about abortion and adoption. Adoption, they would tell me, is “cruel”. Society has told them this. In the end, when they understood that now there is open adoption available and when they understood that the Church stood ready to assist them whether they chose to make an adoption plan or to parent the child themselves, every woman I counseled decided against abortion……..and were utterly renewed in rejoicing for doing so.

We all know it’s killing. We’ve known for years. We tell women all sorts of things to make them want to choose killing. We fail them when we do this.

The answer? Love them both. Don’t choose to love only the mother and kill the child. Don’t choose to love only the child and not the mother. Love them both.

If we can reverse Dred Scott, which classified slaves as non-persons, and evolve in a relatively short amount of time, given the entire history of mankind, to elect an African-American as President of the United States, we can end abortion and empower women.

Sarah Palin is hated because she proves that women can be mothers of disabled children and governors at the same time. So, she considered abortion for, as she said, “a fleeting moment”. People of character are often tempted to do wrong things when their backs are against the wall. The point is, she decided to love not only the child enough to go ahead with the pregnancy, but also to have enough faith in herself to be a hero and do the thing she knew to be right……and women can be heroes no matter what our culture tells them they can’t do.

The “moral” of this story, then, is not that temptation proves we must legalize wrong things. The moral is that women can be heroes and do the right thing even if the law allows them to do the unthinkable.

Many blessings to you.

Note: If you like this article, please click the Share button below and pass it on to others. Thanks.

““““““““““““`
Book Recommendation:
Why Can’t We Love Them Both : Questions and Answers About Abortion

Yet another outrageously frivolous “ethics complaint” has been filed against Governor Sarah Palin — baseless, as usual. Conservatives4Palin has the full story. Please do read it because knowledge of truth is power.

You know, when I get a lot of liberal hate mail, I know I’m doing my job. Governor Palin, congratulations on generating the most outrageous outflux of hatred from liberals since the Reagan era. You are far more of a threat to them than I could ever be and I salute you for it.

I saw a poll (I think it was today, but maybe yesterday) at MIXX regarding Governor Palin. It asked, simply, “Would you consider voting for Sarah Palin for President in 2012?” Over 1,300 people had voted and more than 70% voted YES. Polls like this are the reason for liberal venom. Most of it should be ignored but the frivolous ethics complaints waste the time of government workers who have to handle them, thereby wasting taxpayer dollars, and are financially detrimental to Governor Palin who must pay out of her own pocket to defend against them. I think (talking only from my gut) that there should be a penalty for filing what a judge deems after-the-fact to have been a frivolous complaint, but I’m not familiar with the law on things like that. When the people of a state are filing complaints about their governor speaking in another state, you know they’re desperately pursuing an unhealthy agenda of some kind.

I must say, I have had to file official complaints with my state government (albeit not against the government itself) for denial of access to my service dog. When I am out driving and have to go to the bathroom urgently, if I stop at some public place and find that my wheelchair won’t fit in the bathroom stall, I just leave. I don’t sue for millions of dollars under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If anything, I write a letter to the place of business and let them know they really should get that fixed, but usually I just ignore it and go about my business. Life is hard and I have no desire to become a professional whiner. If a denial of access is egregious, I file a formal complaint. I’ve done it about five times, I think. The state enforcement officer contacts the business, we all discuss it and resolve it like adults. Recently, a person with a service dog was denied access in an identical manner to me, but that person sued through the ADA and got $100,000. Some people are whiners, and trust me when I say that in my sixteen years of political activity, I have found out that liberals are the chief whiners of the nation. There is even a website dedicated to liberal whining.

Sooner or later these people are going to realize the constant whining and attacking is not working. The fact that many ostensibly “popular” mainstream news shows are suffering big ratings drops is an indicator that the tide is turning.

There are a few (precious few) liberals in media who still have certain standards they are willing to fight for. Eileen O’Conner has acted in a professional manner regarding Susan Roesgen’s behavior at CNN. Tommy Christopher understands that Sarah Palin is not being allowed to play on a level playing field. He first spoke out on this when he called out liberal bloggers for viciously attacking her family and more recently by criticizing Newt Gingrich for not mentioning her in a list of viable candidates for 2012. Sophia Nelson has called for less whining from liberals and mentioned the trashing of Palin in subsequent comments to her readers. There are a few liberals out there, in other words, who have earned our respect. Many more are so far out there in Whineyville that intellectual and respectful discourse is, by every indication, impossible.

Allow me to elaborate on the seemingly hopeless ones. Do you know there are multiple blogs and Twitter users dedicated specifically to destroying the reputation of Governor Sarah Palin? In “Kentucky-eeze” we say “folks like that are just ate up”.

“Ate up”: crazy, obsessed and/or completely outperformed in a contest.

The first time I stumbled accidentally upon an anti-Palin blog was after reviewing my stats to see which sites were linking to me. I noticed I was getting a lot of visitors from one site in particular that I had never heard of (and it will continue to remain nameless since I am not in the business of reputation destruction). I clicked the link and got my first look at a genuine, full-fledged, Palin-bashing blog.

The blog in question had linked to a poll we had published regarding Sarah Palin. I was surprised to find that there were many visitors to this anti-Palin blog. Palin-bashers are almost always women and this place was full of them. Women were commenting with glee about the crucifixion of Sarah Palin, the frivolous ethics complaints (which they don’t recognize as frivolous, of course), the trashing of her reputation by her former future son-in-law, etc. Lots of women were posting daily and frequently there about how awful they think Sarah Palin is. Simply put, Sarah Palin can do NOTHING right in their eyes.

At first I was shocked, then disgusted, then angry……..and then I just burst out laughing as I recalled how I’ve heard some men talk about women sitting around talking and how the men sometimes compare them to hens cackling with each other in the barnyard. What that analogy means (I know because I have five brothers and no sisters, so I know “man things”) is that female banter, at least to the male brain, almost always seems as utterly pointless and fruitless as the cackling of chickens. Men just totally “zone out” and don’t “get it”. When I saw this pointless, fruitless banter, I immediately envisioned a barnyard full of chickens and I couldn’t keep myself from laughing.

I posted a comment. I couldn’t help myself. I told them that when I am finished with my work online every day, I am able to discuss my work with my children. I asked, “Can you do that?” I never saw my comment posted. Maybe it was. I didn’t stick around long enough to find out. These poor women don’t get that a person they despise is, without lifting a single finger and without the tiniest intention to do so, controlling them. Simply by being who she is, the person they love to hate, Sarah Palin controls their lives without even intending to. How ironic that they spend so much time thinking about Sarah Palin. They have devoted their daily lives to her. What irony. Imagine this exchange between a mother and child:

“Sweetie, what would you like to be when you grow up?”

“I would like to devote the majority of my time destroying someone’s reputation, Mommy.”

Actually, kids don’t say things like that because no one wants to grow up to be something like that.

The funniest part, which I found out later, is that the main blogger is respected in the high-traffic liberal blogs. She is RESPECTED there! Laughable.

Sooner or later these people are going to realize they are spinning their wheels. They have already convinced everyone they are ever going to hope to convince (Kool-Aid drinkers all) and have earned the disgust of people on both ends of the American political spectrum who still have principles.

These kinds of bloggers are a joke to reasonable people. Unfortunately, there is another kind of Palin-bashing that is truly sad. Many of the haters are not just bloggers who spend their time trashing people but are actually masquerading as public servants. When you defy your own party’s establishment for being corrupt and then, later, campaign against the “messiah” of the other party, those folks can get pretty ticked off.

Example: Last year, the Alaska Legislature adopted a resolution praising Wayne Anthony Ross for his service to Alaska. It passed unanimously. Here is the text. Sarah Palin nominated him this year to serve as Attorney General. They balked. Palin rightly called it what it is — hypocrisy. It’s also politics as usual.

I fear not. Do you know that old saying, “I’ve been insulted by better people than you?” I think of that when I recall the era of Bill Clinton. Here’s a flashback for ya.

Whitewater / Travelgate / Gennifer Flowersgate / Filegate / Vince Fostergate / Whitewater / Billing Recordsgate / Paula Jonesgate / Lincoln Bedroomgate / Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate / Lippogate / Chinagate / The Lewinsky Affair / Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate / Kathleen Willeygate / Web Hubbell Prison Phone Callgate / Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate / Jaunita Broaddrick Gate / Lootergate / Pardongate

The idea of LeviJohnstongate, Leaving the State for 36 HoursGate and Wearing an Arctic Cat JacketGate doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for most people outside of the clueless liberal blogosphere which still maintains the tea parties are partisan despite the booing of GOP Congressmen and placards slamming Republican support for bailouts.

Don’t worry, folks. Sooner or later, Obama is going to tax Kool-Aid and then they’ll wake up.

Thanks for your time, dear readers. Keep the Faith! May God bless you and keep you.

“““““““““““`