I don’t know how I ended up on the same “panel” as the incomparable Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries (cool). Check out the post.

Update: Hanging out in SC, Mark Sanford’s domain. I was born and raised here and hadn’t realized how much I missed being called “ma’am” and “hon.” The first time a young man called me “ma’am,” I was not pleased. (Do I look that old?) Now, I dig it. My perspective changed.

Rest easy, everybody.

Determined and inconvenienced women will always find ways to snuff out their unborn babies’ lives, and the clinics likely will re-open once the economy improves. But for now, I’m praying for a pro-life revival groundswell to sweep the country.

People can delude themselves into believing life doesn’t begin at conception. They de-humanize the child so they can sleep better at night after advocating all day for his death. They can ignore the technology that reveals just how human and precious and wonderful and beautiful that “clump of cells” really is.

But they know. Deep down they know there’s something not quite right about vacuuming this tiny person out of the womb and rinsing his torn body down a sink. Or stabbing him in the brain. Does the unborn child feel the pain of his death?

If those people don’t know something is very wrong, one day they certainly will.

More at WND.

Addendum: Ever heard of Rock for Life? This group promotes the pro-life cause through music, showing up at concerts to spread the message and enlisting the help of pro-life bands. Follow Rock for Life on Twitter.

Live Action’s “Lila Rose” went undercover at a Planned Parenthood in Birmingham, Alabama. She told the employee she was 14, and the woman said she needed her parents’ consent to kill her baby. So far, so legal.

When Lila Rose hedges, the employee asks if she has an older sister over the age of 18. The “pregnant” girl says no, but that her half-brother is over 18. Does he have the same last name? He doesn’t. Out of luck. Or is she?

Lila Rose says her baby’s father is 31. Does the “Whatever you tell us stays within these walls” statement still hold? It’s mandatory in Alabama for clinics to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the firefighters and against New Haven. (Also see video)

Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, was one of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who sided with New Haven. In other words, she ruled against the firefighters denied promotions because of skin color.

A developing meme is that the Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor. Will it make a difference during confirmation hearings? I’m not hopeful Sotomayor-reversed will generate much steam. I doubt Republicans have the heart to grill Sotomayor the way they should. They’re not of stout heart.

For a little light reading, download the 93-page opinion. (PDF)

Be warned. The image below of an eight-week-old aborted baby is real, and it isn’t the worst out there. Even at eight weeks, note the developing ribcage, spine, and bones in his/her fingers. Someone thought this precious life wasn’t fit to live:

Some bozo on Facebook asked me why I was “hating” on abortion. Hating on abortion. “Did you have an abortion, or something?”

Only “friends” can comment on my status updates, and yes, I’d accepted such a person’s “friend” request. Mistake corrected.

No, I have not had an abortion. Thank God. In my younger/dumber days, I called myself pro-choice. But even then, I don’t think I could’ve killed my unborn child had I gotten pregnant.

Arizona does the right thing once again. Both houses of the state legislature passed a measure to restrict abortion. With a Republican in the governor’s mansion who supports the bill, it has a good chance of becoming law. (Source)

The bill would:

• Impose a 24-hour-wait before the slaughter commences;
• Require “doctors” to tell women about risks and alternatives;
• Strengthen a parental approval law;
• Exempt health care providers who consider snuffing out unborn life wrong from dispensing “emergency contraception.”

I know, it’s so little, but it’s something. If the bill saves one unborn baby’s life…

I’m fond of Arizona at the moment. I think it’s time to visit.

Barack Obama, the savior-in-chief who said he was a “fierce advocate” of homosexuals, committed the unpardonable sin of rendering a decision in accordance with the law.

Earlier this month, Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to dismiss Smelt v. United States of America, a case filed by “married” homosexuals attempting to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, DOMA allows states to refuse to recognize so-called same-sex marriages performed in other states and bars the federal government from recognizing such marriages.

A majority of states explicitly protect traditional marriage, including left-leaning California. Last month, the state’s highest court upheld an amendment that declares only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the state. Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer married in California during the brief window in which such marriages were legal. The issue they posed was not whether they had a right to marry, but whether states that bar such marriages must recognize theirs. Obama’s Justice Department said no.

Although the U.S. Constitution provides that states must recognize “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” Congress validly exercised its power [through DOMA] to ensure that each state may decline to apply another state’s laws when they conflict with said state’s public policies. In defending DOMA, Obama did exactly what he swore to do: preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He has neither the duty nor the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. That power belongs to the judiciary.

Outraged homosexual bloggers claim Obama compared so-called homosexual marriages to incestuous and underage marriages (emphases added):

The courts have followed [conflict of laws] principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy…And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, “though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state”); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages “prohibited and void”).

As you can see, the allegation is false. DOJ cited Catalano, Wilkins, and In re Mortenson’s Estate as examples of how the court decided cases in which state laws conflicted. What’s definitely outrageous is homosexuals citing Loving v. Virginia to bolster their argument for marriage between two men, a case easily distinguished from Smelt v. United States of America.

In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving left their home state to marry in Washington, D.C., where interracial marriage was legal. After returning to Virginia, the couple was arrested in their home and charged with “unlawful cohabitation.” The court suspended sentence on the condition that they leave the state. In 1963, the Lovings filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence. Almost a year later, the court still hadn’t ruled on the motion, and the couple filed a class action suit in federal court. The case eventually reached Virginia’s highest court, which upheld the state’s law against miscegenation and affirmed the convictions.

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional. As marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, there was no “legitimate overriding purpose” to outlaw marriage between a white man and a black woman other than blatant racial discrimination. As racial classifications are suspect, states must demonstrate a “permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.” The court added that denying the couple “this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes…is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

Loving did not give people the right to marry whomever they wished; it gave them the freedom to marry without racial restrictions. The goal of interracial marriage bans and legalized segregation was to maintain a subordinate class of citizens based on race. The goal of same-sex marriage bans is to protect traditional marriage, not maintain a subordinate class based on “sexual orientation.” Anyone with only half a brain knows that homosexuals in the U.S. hardly are a subordinate class.

It’s time for homosexual “marriage” proponents to find a more apt and a less offensive argument to gain validation and acceptance of a lifestyle choice.

Good luck with that.

Good grief, woman.

You’re not helping the defeat-Obama-in-2012 cause by e-mailing idiotic junk like this, especially if your name is Sherri Goforth and you’re a legislative aide to Tennessee senator Diane Black:

Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw. Funny stuff. We get it. All the other presidents are white, and Obama’s a spook because he’s half-black. Very original.

Goforth says she sent it to the wrong list. You sure did, honey. Best of luck dealing with the fall-out of your stupendously stupid actions. Get ready for all the venom leftists will heap upon you. They think you’re a racist anyway because you’re a Republican.

Learn a valuable lesson, you will.

“The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from the portion of the population lease intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly,” said Margaret Sanger, founder the abortion mill Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Among other things, she considered non-Aryan people unfit to breed and “a great biological menace to the future of civilization.” If she were alive today, I wonder what she’d think of Barack Obama, American’s first biracial president. Let’s speculate. His mother was white, and he was raised by whites. He attended Harvard and became president of the United States. I think she’d approve. But you never know.

We know what Sanger would think of Reverend Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of a group once known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, now disguised as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. “I support Planned Parenthood 100 percent,” he said.

In 1939, Sanger created the “Negro Project,” in which she enlisted the services of black ministers to share her solution to the problem: contraception, sterilization, and abortion. “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal,” Sanger wrote. “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Back to Obama. Not only is he pro-abortion, he’s pro-infanticide. Not only that, but he’s of the opinion that infants born despite attempts to kill them should receive no medical care. It is up to the doctor to decide whether an infant born during a botched abortion is worthy of life-saving care.

Margaret Sanger was a product of her times. What’s Obama’s excuse? Or Carlton Veazey’s? A so-called minister of the Gospel heads a child killing advocacy organization? What on earth possessed Veazey to think Christ called him to that?

Veazey before the judgment seat:

“Well, see, what had happened was, God, is that I believed it was my duty, as a minister of your Word, you know, to preach a gospel of choice and support women in their right to kill the unborn. Say what? Yes, you did infuse those babies with souls, but see, I merely was doing what I thought you commanded me to do, God, you know, spread the pro-choice gospel to every nation. Say what? I was dead wrong? Pardon the pun. My bad. I plead ignorance! Uh…judge not lest ye be judged!”

• A Tale of Two Murders (Word infanticide removed; lauguage used to create imagery also removed. Too incendiary.)
• Yes, There Is a Slippery Slope on Gay Marriage

Later…My non-political sister just pointed out that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s attack on the military recruiters was an attack against the entire U.S. military. STILL no response from AG (as of 11:39 a.m. PT).

*************************************************************************

Update (6/4): The U.S. Attorney General issued a statement on private citizen Tiller’s murder the day it happened:

“The murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment. Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.”

So far, there’s no statement posted about the murder of Pvt. Long (as of 10:34 a.m. PT), a member of the U.S. armed forces, three days after it happened.

*************************************************************************

Well, what do you know? Two days after military recruiter Private William Long’s murder (as opposed to hours after abortionist George Tiller’s murder on a Sunday, no less) by a Muslim convert, President Barack Obama finally released a statement, though it’s not posted on the White House web site yet (as of 9:26 a.m. PT):

“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.” (Source)

Obama’s statement about Tiller:

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

This is how Obama’s statement about Long should read:

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Pvt. William Long as he performed his duty. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as sending our men and women overseas to preserve our freedom, protect others from tyranny, and contain global Islamic terrorism, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

Our military men and women serve and protect. One of the commander-in-chief’s own men was killed by a follower of Allah while on duty. Relevant in the age of Islamic terrorism, don’t you think? That’s the murder that should have been responded to within hours. But why quibble? I suspect the only reason Obama released a statement at all was because conservative bloggers kept daring him to.

(Photo credit: KATV)

While I’m working on exactly what I’d say to Garafolo face should we ever meet, check out the video below.

More like Katrina Pierson, please:

Here’s the link to Pierson’s speech video.

***
Interesting observation:

Within hours of the murder of George Tiller, murderer of babies, pro-life organizations, Christian groups, bloggers, liberal and conservative, feminist organizations, and your Aunt Fanny condemned Tiller’s murder. The White House posted a press release the same day.

Yesterday, a military recruiter was gunned down by a Muslim convert, and I’ve not seen or heard anything remotely comparable to the outpouring of media attention and sympathy Tiller’s murder received. As of this morning, 8:36 a.m. PT, a day after the military recruiter’s murder, the White House has issued no statement. I certainly don’t expect the president to issue statements every time someone is killed, but…

(Detractors who called my Tiller post “gloating,” “twisted,” and “hateful” did so because I reminded readers that he killed infants for a living and because I didn’t publicly condemn Tiller’s murder. Unnecessary, as I condemn all acts of murder, especially murder of the unborn. I have no desire to appease anyone, especially people who think women have a right to slaughter babies in the womb. Take note that I haven’t publicly condemned the recruiter’s murder, either. Consequently, I’ll patiently await follow-up posts from liberal/pro-death bloggers declaring this post to be “gloating,” “twisted,” and “hateful” as well.)

Are the media to blame for failing to cover whatever official statements of condemnation exist, or are there no such condemnations to be found?

Just an observation.