Monday, January 05, 2015

Is Abortion Government Sanctioned Murder? If It Is, It Must Be Exposed and Opposed! It Must Be Stopped!

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert is running for Speak of the House!

Update from:

“More than half-a-million letters, 525,000 to be specific, already are set to be delivered to the 247 GOP members of the U.S. House when they get back to business, urging them to replace Boehner as speaker.

And the momentum keeps building.

On Twitter, the hashtags #BoehnerMustGo and #DumpBoehner were surging, and other commentators, while not adopting the specific “JOIN THE DON’T BE YELLOW, DUMP BOEHNER NOW CAMPAIGN,” strategy, agree with the goal.”

“God created human government. It is, therefore, inconceivable that God would create government and then tell His people to stay out of it.” ~ Pastor Adrian Rogers

New app now available!

Juggle Bug ~ Mobile Phone Game ~ Its FREE! ~ TRY IT!

My blog site for the U.S. House of Representatives District 19 for Texas campaign is:



Please continue to pray for Dr. Kent Brantly and all those involved with the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.


“You Cannot Personally Oppose Abortion but Be Publicly Accepting Of It
by Frank Camp
January 3, 2015

If you think it should be legal then you dont personally oppose abortion. (Absolutely true! If you believe it should be legal then you are a pro-abortion/pro-MURDER supporter by definition!my addition)

I hate abortions, but just could not make that choice for someone else (Do you think if someone had a gun to her head and asked her Should I pull the trigger?” she would say I do not think I could make that choice for someone else?my addition).’ – Barbara Bush

What is moral? Moreover, what is morality? Is premeditated murder always wrong (By definition by GOD Thou shalt not MURDER!” It is not: “Thou shalt not MURDER except for ….”!my addition)? If a man decides to decapitate his wife simply because she annoys him, is that wrong? If someone mugs a priest, is it wrong? You may think I’m asking outrageous questions the answers to which appear obvious—but they are not so outrageous when we understand that they are simply an extension of a much baser question: Is morality universal, or is it relative (It is universal because it is GOD-given! It may not be accepted universally! However, being and accepting are two different categories!my addition)? If morality is universal, if we follow a set code of conduct, then the answers are clear. These acts are morally wrong. But if we adhere to the principle of moral relativity (The Left! Wait. They have no morality!my addition), the answers are murkier, because one further question must be asked: Who is the ultimate arbiter of what is right, and what is wrong (They did that which was right in their own eyes!my addition)?

Mario Cuomo, three term governor of New York, died two days ago at the age of 82. He was a vocal liberal, who, as liberals tend to do, contradicted himself in many ways (Situation ethics!my addition). He opposed the death penalty, yet supported abortion (And yet capital punishment is more moral than abortion/MURDER!my addition). The New York Times, in their eulogy to Cuomo, praised this aspect of his personality (The New York Times is Leftist in every way!my addition):

His annual veto of the death penalty became a rite, and he invoked it as a testimony to his character and principles. He was similarly resolute when he defied his church in 1984 by flying to the University of Notre Dame to proclaim that Roman Catholic politicians who personally opposed abortion, as he did, could appropriately support the right of a woman to have an abortion (No! First of all, no one, including women with their unborn children, has the right to MURDER anyone! Words are so misused by the Left!my addition).’

It has always fascinated me that one can proclaim to be personally opposed to abortion—or any moral issue—while publicly supporting it. There is a disconnect in that position that is rarely touched upon but demands examination. To properly examine this seeming disconnect, we must ask the question: is abortion something that one can be personally opposed to, but publicly accept (Not logically!my addition)? And if so, what does that mean?

If one is personally opposed to abortion, it means that they believe there is some kind of moral consequence to the action. Given the nature of the procedure, the only aspect of the process that could be considered morally consequential is the perceived taking of a life (The MURDER of an innocence! The whole concept that demonstrates the hypocrisy that abortions/MURDERS should be rare! If they were not evil, there would be no need for them to be rare! You do not hear the Left say they should be rare anymore because even they understood the hypocrisy of it!my addition). If one believes that abortion is the deliberate extinguishing of a life, rather than the simple removal of an unwanted parasite or clump of cells, then one has acknowledged that abortion is the same as murder (Because it is MURDER!my addition). Taking a life in a premeditated manner—whether it is an adult, a teenager, or an infant in the womb—is murder (Yes, it is!my addition). Anyone who is allegedly ‘personally opposed to abortion’ must be so because they believe that the creature inside a pregnant woman is a living human being (Because he/she is!my addition).

Given the weight of that personal objection, how can one be open to others participating in the practice? It is inconsistent (It is also contrary to that which is moral! To approve others doing that which is evil! Christians are to expose and stop evil, not encourage others to participate in it!my addition). To publicly accept abortion is to say one of two things:

– I do not believe that the entity inside a pregnant woman is a human life, and therefore, it is terminable without remorse (Which is a lie!my addition).

– It is indeed life, but I cannot impose my belief on another (Which means it is alright for others to do evil!my addition).

While the first statement is consistent, the second is not. If one believes an act to be wrong, it is their obligation to proclaim it as such (Expose evil!my addition). However, there are those who claim that while they believe that abortion is the termination of a life, they cannot impose their belief on others because the science isn’t settled (That is also a lie!my addition). That’s an intellectually dishonest position to take. If one believes abortion to be the taking of a life, they have based that belief on something (Hopefully!my addition). Whatever they have based their belief on has to be sound enough that it has forced them to take a moral position. Whether or not the basis of their belief is scientific, biblical, or otherwise, they have been convinced of its soundness, and as such, must remain consistent in it, personally, and publicly (Should indeed!my addition).

However, if one is still unconvinced, the viability argument is the nail in the coffin. If ‘viability’ is the standard by which one is considered human, one must first define ‘viability.’ To the pro-choice lobby, viability is the ability to survive without the nurturing of another, or to survive on one’s own accord. They claim that because an infant prior to a certain number of gestational weeks cannot survive without the life-support of its mother, it is not legally viable, and therefore not human (Which is nonsense! The infant is going through a process of the life cycle! A life cycle established by GOD! Every human has gone through the same process including JESUS, the Christ!my addition). But if one accepts the idea of viability as the defining attribute of what makes an infant living—and therefore legally human—one must also accept it as the defining attribute of all of human life. There are, however, many fully grown human beings who cannot survive without the support of another. For example, small children cannot care for themselves, and without constant support from their parents, they would die. The elderly and those with severe disabilities would also fall under the same umbrella of non-viable persons if we follow the logical through-line of the viability argument, because many of them cannot care for themselves (Which is why the Left wants death panels and euthanasia!my addition), and rely on around the clock life-support. If viability is the key to defining what is legally terminable, many disabled adults, and most children up to several years old would be defined as non-viable, and therefore, it would not be morally wrong to kill them if you wanted to do so (Do not put ideas into their heads! The Left wants population control as long as they are not part of the population controlled!my addition).

Once the DNA is written at conception, the entity inside a woman is human, because nothing changes aside from the shape of the being from that point forward (Exactly! It is all part of the GOD-created human life cycle!my addition). A five year-old is certainly less developed than a fifteen year-old, but does that make him less viable? Just as a five year-old is equal to a teenager in terms of viability, a zygote is equally viable to any other stage of human life. And if one believe this to be true—denying the fallacious viability argument—one cannot publicly support abortion (Not if they are moral!my addition).

So, we’re back to basics. If one believes an unborn child is living, how can one publicly accept its murder? Only if one believes in moral relativity. If one believes that morality is determined by culture, and by individuals, one can make the claim that his or her morality is simply not the same as another’s. But this leads us to another trap. If one believes in relative morality, one cannot condemn anything at all because to each his own (Exactly! Each man determines that which is right in his own eyes! Thus, if it is right to murder you, you must let him go ahead and murder you!my addition). Murder may be wrong for you—that may be your personal truth
—but someone else may not believe the same way you do. If morality is determined by majority culture, then you must accept that at one time, slavery of blacks was not wrong, because a majority of Americans supported it. You must believe that it only became wrong once it was publicly accepted as wrong. And if that’s the case, what is morality at all but a meaningless flow of public opinion (The Lefts ideal definition as long as they control public opinion! What is their phrase? Oh yes. “On the right side of history!” The right side being their side of course!my addition)?

You cannot have your cake, and eat it, too. You must take moral stances, and impose them on others, or you must accept that everyone has a different moral standard, and impose nothing. Either murder is wrong, or it’s not (And MURDER is wrong! Which means that abortion/MURDER is wrong! Which means that everyone who supports abortion/MURDER either through actions or silence is supporting evil!my addition).”


Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

Victory through JESUS the Christ is complete! The question is how many will join the FAMILY of GOD and how many will be lost?

Lets make 2015 a benchmark year in protecting all human life from conception to natural death. It can be done. It will not be done if we do not try, pray, work, and put our faith and trust in GOD, JESUS, and the HOLY SPIRIT and THEIR power!

Planned MURDERHOOD is the most prolific MURDER organization in our nations history! Without question! And the federal government gives it money! And the federal government gives money to worldwide organizations that MURDER unborn babies! Why are we funding MURDER?

2 Corinthians 5: 10 (NIV)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”

Romans 8: 28 (NIV)

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

Sign the new Speaker John Boehner motivated petition to impeach our lawless President:

President Barack Hussein Obama: I can not bypass Congress and change the laws on my own!