Saturday, February 08, 2014

Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, Reproductive Rights: The Act Is the Same Whatever the Name—MURDER of an Innocent Unborn Child!

According to Politics1, there are nine Republicans running for the open Senate seat in Georgia including three current Congressmen. I was going to sit this primary out and let the voters of Georgia decide their candidate. I am not going to officially give support to any one candidate. That being said, Congressman Paul Broun is the only candidate that routinely sends me e-mails. His website is From what I can tell, he is a true conservative. I received an e-mail from his campaign yesterday that linked this great campaign ad! I had to share it!


This is a bonus video on Dr. Broun and the MURDER of unborn babies


“WHOA! What Happens When You Call ‘Pro-Choice’ Lefty a ‘Pro-Abortion’ Lefty …
by Benny Huang
February 4, 2014

‘I’m not happy … Joy Behar replied.’

Christina Breitbeil, a student journalist at the University of Texas-Austin, created quite a stir when she wrote honestly about a pro-abortion rally on the steps of the state capitol. She actually referred to the pro-abortion rally as…a pro-abortion rally. Five times.
All over Austin and beyond, heads went ka-boom. Complaints poured into the newspaper which then issued a correction and altered the website. Pro-choice is the proper label, detractors argued, because no one is pro-abortion.

I always find myself scratching my head at this particular argument. The pro-choice crowd is always very vague as to why they aren’t pro-abortion. They say it’s a tough decision that they labor over (no pun intended), but should remain their decision all the same.

The ladies at The View summed up the begrudgingly pro-choice position fairly well when they hosted Ron Paul on their show in 2007. Congressman Paul, a gynecologist and pro-lifer, held his own with the ladies as they twisted themselves into pretzels trying to explain their support for a procedure they actually oppose. At one point, Paul asked the women if they would be happy with a bill restricting abortion to the first six weeks.
I’m not happy with abortion, period, Joy Behar replied. Nobody is.

Whoopi Goldberg weighed in as well: No one makes this decision lightly. This is not something somebody says, Oh I’ll go get this. This is not a fun thing to go do. She should know. Whoopi’s had at least six abortions (If true, she is a mass MURDERER!—my addition). If Planned Parenthood had a punch card, Whoopi would be buying five and getting her sixth abortion free. But she doesn’t take it lightly, no sir.

Trying to determine just why pro-choicers are supposedly not pro-abortion is an impossible task. They talk around the subject, using poll-tested euphemisms, while never properly answering the question—what’s so wrong with abortion that they are not pro it?

Could it be that abortion is an act of lethal violence against a child, usually carried out for the convenience of the adults? No, they can’t admit that. So what is it then? That secret is locked up tighter than the recipe for Coca-Cola. They’ll never tell.

The usual argument for being pro-choice goes something like this: if a woman wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision to make. And if she doesn’t, that’s her decision too.
A person could actually be staunchly anti-abortion and yet still pro-choice—the old personally opposed canard.

Yet I can comfortably declare with great certitude that the pro-choice left does not oppose abortion, personally or otherwise. When the left decides it’s personally opposed to something, it does not tolerate its existence. If outright prohibition is not feasible they switch to a war of attrition. They tax the behavior they don’t like, publicly shame those who practice it, and make a slew of polemical Hollywood films clearly intended to turn public opinion against it. With abortion, they have done the opposite: they have demanded public subsidies for the procedure they hate so much (Why is that? And they call it healthcare!—my addition), sought to remove the stigma of abortion, and churned out this-is-why-we-need-Roe movies such as The Cider House Rules.

Just don’t call them pro-abortion.
The pro-choice label gives the pro-abortion side of the debate an air of neutrality. In order to be truly pro-abortion, I suppose, one would have to favor abortions in one hundred percent of pregnancies. Anything short of that is not a true pro-abortion position but merely a pro-choice one.

Actually, I can relate to this because I feel the same way about a lot of other issues, just not ones that involve killing children. Gun control is a good example. I don’t own a gun and probably never will but I would never take that right away from another adult non-felon. (They can’t go shooting kids with it, however.) So I’m pro-choice on guns. But no one calls my position pro-choice. They call it the pro-gun position, and that’s fine. The opposing side is normally referred to as anti-gun. Somehow we can’t use such straight-forward labelling when it comes to abortion.

The pro-choice label is reserved for only one issue and that’s abortion. Everyone living in this society knows, without any further context, that choice refers to a single issue: abortion. Not light bulbs, union membership, or whether to own a Smith & Wesson or a Sig Sauer. It’s abortion every single time.

Christina Breitbeil’s article was a welcomed exception to the media bias to which we’ve become so accustomed. The media like to call the pro-abortion side of the debate pro-choice because reporters sympathize with that position. The media permit the pro-abortion crowd to select its own label, no matter how propagandistic it is. Not so for the pro-lifers who are referred to as anti-abortion.

Which we are, of course. That’s the issue we’re debating: abortion, not choice. Choice is merely the word that people select when they don’t want to use that other one.

So let’s get down to the nitty-gritty here. We’re having a debate about the issue of abortion. Broadly speaking, there are two opposing camps: the pro’s and the anti’s. If reporters cared at all about being objective, that’s how they would write about the issue.
Why don’t they write that way? Here’s why: because when people understand that the issue of abortion is about abortion, not choice or reproductive justice or whatever new Madison Avenue-approved catch phrase NARAL is using this week, the result is always the same—the pro-abortion side loses.

Which is exactly why we should keep using it. Remember, if you’re getting flak, you must be over the target. The anti-abortion (pro-life) side of the debate should never miss an opportunity to call its opponents pro-abortion. Besides being effective, it’s also honest language. We should demand that the news media do the same. If they’re going to call our side anti-abortion, they should call the other pro-abortion. It’s only fair (When has the establishment media ever been fair when it comes to the MURDER of innocent unborn children?—my addition).

I never use pro-choice when referring to abortion. I do not think we should use pro-abortion either. We should use the most accurate, most descriptive term available. And that term is:

Pro-MURDER! For that is what occurs with every abortion!

It is time for all of us who support the morality established by GOD to rebel against the forces of evil! Expose their evil and return to GODS word and will!

Christians were bold in the First Century church! Are Christians as bold today?

Christians were resolute in the First Century church! Are Christians as resolute today?

Christians stood for the truth in the First Century church! Are Christians standing for the truth today?

If not Christians, who? If not now, when?

This is my two part suggestion to Tea Party groups, social conservatives, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who wants to save our Republic from the approaching destruction.

1) Run as many conservative candidates in as many Republican primaries as possible.

2) Then, run as many independent and/or third party candidates as possible in as many races as possible where we did not win the primary.

That is why I am working to get the Constitution Party on the ballot in Texas. If we get on the ballot, we will have two Congressional House candidates running and two State candidates running. Getting on the ballot is the first step. Winning elections is the second. Winning elections will grow the Party. The Constitution Party is much more in line with the Tea Party movement than is the Republican Party. And I have been involved with all three!

The Constitution Party of Texas website:                                                            

If elected to Congress, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for present Speaker of the House John Boehner to be Speaker of the House. I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (in writing) make the same pledge. It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge. See my post at on December 16, 2013 entitled “Speaker of the House John Boehner Attacks the Tea Party Again for Being Fiscally Responsible!” 

If I am elected to the House, I will use the Constitution, as written, to do everything in my power to stop judicial tyranny! Will the other candidates pledge the same? I know our present Representative has NOT done everything possible to stop judicial tyranny! Why is that?

Competition is good for the economy and competition is good for the Republican Party!!! Competition keeps Congressmen committed to we the people!!! Primary Republicans who do not support the Constitution as written.

The Constitution Party of Texas website: