What Democrats Want, Day 100, Countdown to Oblivion? The Supreme Court

As of today, there are 100 days until the most consequential election in American history. This is what they say about many past elections, but this is really it. For if the Democrats seize power – control of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and the Presidency – and doing it by hook or by crook (the justifies the means, you know) America as we know it will be forever changed. America envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers will disappear into the shadows of history. 

The ungodly secular-humanists/Marxists slow march through America’s institutions over the last 100 years or so will have reached a crescendo – fulfilling Mr. Obama’s fundamental transformation of America. Never again will the demonic Democratic Party relinquish its grip on political power and control of the masses.

Envision with me what a Socialist Democratic Party, takeover, a bloodless coup, a final regime change, would look like. This is the first of a series of daily articles leading up to the 2020 General Election scheduled for November 3, 2020.

A Lawless or a Lawful Supreme Court?

A big part of the 2016 election was who was going to appoint justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which unfortunately did not turn out as expected with Justice Gorsuch pushing LHBT special rights in the horrific unconstitutional Bostock decision. However, you know that it would have been even worse under a Hillary Clinton Administration, think two clones of ex-ACLU attorney Justice Ruth Ginsberg.

In the 2020 General Election SCOTUS will again be a big part of the contest especially regarding the United States Senate and the Presidential races. Why? Because if the GOP loses the Senate and President Trump wins, it will be very difficult to get a justice appointed who will follow the Constitution and interpret the it as written and not as find mysterious or invent rights that may support current culture norms, including perversions, or possibly even follow International law or Islamic Sharia.

It is "Katie bar the door" if both the Senate and Presidency are lost to the Democrats. Judicial tyranny and activism will be accentuated and accelerated causing rolling cultural earthquakes in numerous areas reshaping and making America unrecognizable. We will be Venezuela. 

Great damage has already been done to America in just the last fifty years by the "Supremes." They invented a woman's right to kill her unborn baby in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. The Court also declared in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that sodomy was no longer criminal behavior. Following that atrocious Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2017 the "enlightened" justices granted same-sex partners the right to "marry." To add injury to insult, the not so "conservative" Justice Neal Gorsuch shamefully sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and other Leftist Justices on the Court just this past June to grant additional special rights to gender dysfunctional individuals in Bostock v Clayton County.  Much more damage can be expected as an already tyrannical Court is further reinforced with Democrat appointed and confirmed justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Neil Gorsuch

We will address the areas impacted by such a disastrous turn of events, this worst-case scenario, in subsequent posts during this daily countdown series.

March for Life 2016, #WhyWeMarch?

The 43rd March for Life, since the horrific and unjust Roe v. Wade Supreme Court edict, is being streamed online. Click here. 

#WhyWeMarch

The Left Wants the State to be God

One of the “5 Right-Wing Lunacies This Week: O'Reilly Goes Way Off the Deep End” (an article by Janet Allon on AlterNet.com) was Senator Rick Santorum’s contention that the concept of “Separation of Church and State is a Communist Idea.”

4. Rick Santorum: Separation of Church and State is a Communist Idea.

Sure hope Rick Santorum runs for president again. This theocracy booster told listeners that the words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. You know where they appear?  “It was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union,” Santorum said in a conference call with members of right-wing pastor E.W. Jackson’s STAND America.

Whoa!

Someone needs to do some time-traveling quick to inform Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Founding Fathers that the amendment they drafted into the Constitution is a commie plot to separate us from Jesus!

Here is my comments in response to the above:

"The words separation of church and state do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution" So, where in the U. S. Constitution do these words appear, Janet? Senator Santorum is correct, they do not appear in OUR Constitution.

It was the SCOTUS that perverted and misinterpreted the original intent of the Founders. It was never the intent of the Founders to separate God from the State, but only to insure that no specific Christian demonization be made the official state church, like was the situation in England.

Roe v. Wade is another perverted, misinterpreted decision. There the Supreme Court invented a right ("a woman's reproductive right" which is the right to kill a woman's unborn baby, a developing human being ) that was never intended either.

The biggest lesson that should be learned is that SCOTUS is not supreme and they are extremely fallible as are all human beings and institutions.

 

Why is birth control a ‘right’ but birth is not?

"Why is birth control a 'right' but birth is not?" This was a question asked by ‏@WretchedManIam on twitter this morning. This is such an amazingly simple, yet profound question.

Birth control is not a ‘right.’ It is a choice made by an individual. The choice is governed by the person’s moral compass, his/her conscience. Some people’s conscience is dead.

On the other hand, every American, born or pre-born, has a right to life. This is stated clearly in our Declaration of Independence. The Supreme Court misinterpreted the Constitution when it issued its fatal and wrong decision in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Abortion in 99% of the cases is unnecessary and wrong. It snuffs out the life of a developing human being. Allowing abortion in America is an on-going atrocity, a travesty of justice. It is immoral. It is nothing by destructive to the individuals involved, the mother and baby, and to society as a whole.

Legalized Abortion Codified into Law

Roe v. Wade is not the law of land.  It did not "legalize" abortion because judge can't make law.  But in 2004 Congress passed legislation specifically permitting abortion in the United States.

Here it is...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.146:

Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child
Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law ... is guilty of a separate offense under this section...
...[This section] does not permit prosecution--
(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;
(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

And who wrote this bill?  Our current state Attorney General Mike DeWine.  And which Presidential candidate also supported the bill?  Rick Santorum

Roe v. Wade, 39 Years Later

Every year, since the 1973 SCOTUS decision to legalize the murder of innocent children, there has been some formal recognition of this tradegy. Pro-Life proponents have conducted annual March for Life events ever since 1973. Many churches will be participating in National Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, where special messages will be presented recognizing the great evil of abortion that has been allowed to grow and fester in this nation.

This Sunday, January 22, 2012 is the 39^th Anniversary of the infamous Roe versus Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision. I saw the embedded video below today and was impressed with its timely and informative message.

The video captures Allan Parker’s, attorney and President of The Justice Foundation, reflections on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and the Word of God. He discusses the history of Operation Outcry and his foundational scripture. He discusses the three major court cases influenced by Operation Outcry women's testimony. He also discusses the future of Roe and where he thinks the Pro-Life Movement will be in 2013.

Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill : A Nice Pro-Life Bill If There Is No God

http://rightremedy.org/articles/364

Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill : A Nice Pro-Life Bill If There Is No God

By Dr. Patrick Johnston

"You and three others were in a boat in the middle of the ocean. You are healthy and fit, one is morbidly obese and out of shape, one is an elderly woman with cancer, and one is a child with Downs syndrome. You must row at least three days and nights to get to land, and there is no food and barely enough water to sustain no more than three of you. If the four of you split it four ways, all of you will die. Which one should you throw overboard to keep the others alive?"

This was my first exposure to relative morality in a classroom at the Florida State University in the 1990s. Many were thoroughly shaken by the argument, and it was horrifying to hear students argue about which person in the boat was most disposable.

Rather than shaking my faith in Christianity, these arguments strengthened my faith. It was plain to see that abandoning God's Word would lead ordinary college students to drown an obese man or an elderly woman, or to murder and eat a Down's syndrome child. If placed in certain circumstances in which they speculated more good could be done from their actions than harm, these college students would commit atrocities, push Jews into ovens, euthanize their loved ones, cannibalize children, or abort babies.

The pro-life movement in the United States has proven its willingness to push one person out of the boat in order to try to save another. In our compromise, we become the greatest hindrance to occupying the Promised Land of liberty and justice for all. In our capitulation to arbitrary standards that reek of godlessness, we become accomplices in the Abortion Holocaust and violators of the spirit of the sixth commandment.

"Do no murder" has no exceptions. "A murderer has no eternal life abiding in them" the Apostle John warned. Consenting to the murder of one in order to save another is never justified.

Even if all four of you die in the boat, it is never right to do wrong to do right. It is always wrong to intentionally kill or consent to the killing of one innocent child. You may be more likely to survive if you push someone off the boat, but you'll lose the blessing of God and sacrifice your soul. That cost is just too high. God's Word is the standard for right and wrong, for justice and injustice, and His Word is supreme over the opinions of college freshman, Supreme Court justices, Presidents, and even well-intentioned pro-life leaders.

How does Ohio's Heartbeat Bill (House Bill 125) push some out of the boat in order to save others? How does Ohio's Heartbeat Bill consent to the dehumanization and slaughter of the innocent preborn?

By way of its exceptions, and its inappropriate penalties, and it’s moral standard.

First, let us examine the bill's exceptions. According to subsection C(1) of the bill, "no person shall perform an abortion on a pregnant woman prior to determining if the fetus the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat." How is "detectable" defined? According to subsection C(2) and C(3), the presence of a heartbeat is determined by "standard medical practice" and the "rules" that may be promulgated by the "director of health."

Certainly, the pro-abortion director of health's rules would never tend to minimize the presence of the heartbeat, right? Who's the one responsible for detecting the fetus' heartbeat anyway? None other than the abortionist.  Certainly, the abortionist would never intentionally turn a deaf ear to a heartbeat in order to justify an abortion, right? Good grief, why do we trust murderers to be ethical? This legislation is no more trustworthy than pro-abortion physicians, and that is a very weak link indeed.

Moreover, the heartbeat exists long before we can hear it or see it on ultrasound according to "standard medical practice." It is proven that the baby's heartbeat begins as early as 21 days after conception, long before the heartbeat is "detectable" according to "standard medical practice." Why are these babies ignored, dehumanized, or pushed out of the boat to save the ones with heartbeats? The basis of a heartbeat to determine the existence of life is helpful, but why the arbitrary "detectable according to standard medical practice" rule? I've cared for adults with heart failure who had heartbeats that were difficult to detect. Were they somehow less worthy of life?

There are more exceptions: Subsections C(1) and D(1) of the bill make exceptions for "medical emergencies" and B(6) defines medical emergency to be a condition that "in the physician's good faith medical judgment... so endangers the life of a pregnant woman or a major bodily function... as to necessitate the immediate... abortion."

Is the life or health of the woman a justification for an abortion? Certainly, if the mother dies, the baby certainly dies, so shouldn't physicians be allowed to save the one that they can save?

The problem with pushing someone out of the boat to save another is that intrusive little conscience-probing commandment, "Do no murder." Intentionally killing an innocent person is always wrong. God will judge us all according to our works, without favoritism, and so we should consult His ethical standard before pragmatically embracing moral relativism. God's Word is a strong foundation that can withstand cross-examination, whereas moral relativism is like a deck of cards in a hurricane - useless to justify its own existence, much less any standard of morality.

Moreover, is it really necessary to kill the mother to save the baby?

Most so-called "therapeutic abortions" are prescribed to protect the physician, not the patient. For example, I had a pregnant patient who was diagnosed with cancer and was urged to get a "therapeutic abortion" so the physician could save her life. The physician wanted to get her on chemotherapy right away, but he refused to prescribe the therapy unless the patient aborted her baby. The doctor's real concern was not the mother's life at all; the mother's life would have been saved by the chemotherapy even if she was pregnant. The physician was concerned that the baby would survive and be born deformed and he would be found liable in civil litigation, and so to protect him in his recommendations that the patient undergo chemotherapy, he recommended an abortion.

It would certainly be ethical to prescribe the chemotherapy if it were necessary in order to save the mother's life. If the baby were to inadvertently die from chemotherapy, the death would be unfortunate and unintentional and would not be a crime any more than if one of the people in the boat in the middle of the ocean were to die of thirst on the journey. But to intentionally kill the baby to save the mother is not any more necessary than it is lawful.

If you witness a car with two passengers crash over the guardrail of a bridge and plunge into the river, and if you were to dive into the water but could only save one, would it then be justifiable for you to take out your pistol and slay the one you couldn't save? No - that would be murder. It is never right to intentionally kill one innocent person, even if you do so in order to save the life of another. Even in war, collateral damage is an unintentional consequence, but if soldiers intentionally target innocent civilians, they are guilty of war crimes and worthy of prosecution.

The bill's penalties are also intrinsically unjust because they treat the preborn as sub-human, and prescribe a penalty that is insufficient to protect them.

According to subsection C(4), if the physician commits an abortion before determining whether the preborn baby has a heartbeat, he is susceptible to "disciplinary action" before the Ohio State Medical Board. Whoa! Murder a baby, and the state medical board might sanction you, but only if at least six of their twelve members vote against you. Behold the high price of murder! Kill a baby, and your medical license might be suspended. No worries, doctors, getting half of the Ohio State Medical Board to vote to criminalize abortion is about as implausible as getting half of National Right to Life to try to criminalize abortion.

According to subsection E, if a physician commits an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been identified, he may be convicted of a fifth degree felony. So the penalty for committing an abortion before a heartbeat has been detected results in the physician being sent to the Ohio State Medical Board who will vote on whether to sanction your medical license, but if you commit an abortion after a heartbeat has been detected, you may be charged with a fifth degree felony. Why, pray tell, would a physician who intends to commit an abortion ever check the fetal heartbeat? The penalty for committing an abortion is worse if you do! If anything, this bill assures that abortionists will never check for a fetal heartbeat, or if they do, they will certainly not document its presence in the medical record.

Convicting the murderer of a preborn baby for a fifth degree felony dehumanizes the child [subsection E(5)]. If we lived in a slave state of the colonial era, would a just law criminalize the killing of slaves by fining their slavemasters?  Even if it did decrease the murder of slaves, the law itself is lawless, for it dehumanizes the African American slave in prescribing a penalty that is insufficient for the crime. If they are people, a just law would treat them like people, and prescribe the same penalty for murdering a slave as for murdering a white man.

Furthermore, this bill specifically exempts the mother from prosecution: "A pregnant woman on whom an abortion is performed... is not guilty of violating [this law] nor of attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or complicity in committing a violation of [this law]... and is not subject to civil penalty" [subsection F]. Even if she does attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or is complicit with the killing of her preborn baby, this law forbids her from being prosecuted for it. What good would it be to ban slavery if we exempted slave-traders? What good would it do to criminalize the persecution and murder of Jews in Nazi Germany if we were to exempt soldiers who put Jews in ovens? If ever the preborn are protected in American law, it will be in spite of laws like this, not because of them, for this bill would inscribe into the law the very dehumanization of preborn babies that brought about abortion-on-demand in the first place.

Why not treat the preborn like people? Why prescribe a penalty for killing them that differs from the penalty for killing any other person outside the womb? Why exempt the accomplices from prosecution? We've assassinated our own moral authority when we make exceptions and treat the preborn as if they are not recipients of the God-given, inalienable right to life. We show that we really don't believe that the preborn have the right to life guaranteed in the Constitution. When pro-lifers capitulate to the dehumanization of the preborn in their proposed legislation, we become accomplices in the Abortion Holocaust.  "Let us do evil that good may come" is not an argument that is addressed favorably in Scripture (Romans 3:8).

What is the moral standard that is invoked in this legislation? Is it the Constitution, which says that the government shall not deprive another of life or liberty without a trial by jury? No. Is it the law of God, which says "Do no murder" in Exodus 20, and in chapter 21, verses 22-23, says that those who kill preborn children should be executed? No, of course not. In subsections H, I, and J, this bill specifically cites the federal judiciary as the standard of morality and justice. This bill prescribes into law the supremacy of the Supreme Court over both the law of God and the Constitution. This bill forces its signers and supporters to bow the knee to judicial tyranny. Thus, this bill is rotten to its very foundation. Its design is not to protect the preborn, not to give them justice, and certainly not to please "the Father of the fatherless."

According to the Constitution, whatever rights and duties are not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states or the people. Does the federal judiciary have any obligation to be involved in criminal justice? Only for the crimes of treason and invasion. Criminal justice is a local matter according to the law of the land.

Criminal justice is also a local matter according to the law of God. In Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 35, the community nearest the crime is responsible for prosecuting murderers, and if they failed to execute the murderer, the curse of innocent blood came upon their land. Romans 13 says that civil authorities are obligated to wield the sword of vengeance to execute wrath against evil-doers and to protect the innocent. God, who gives us our right to life and liberty in the first place, delegates to local authorities the responsibility to protect those rights through the administration of justice. The federal judiciary cannot overrule the Creator. The Word of God reigns supreme over every word of man that contradicts it. States should defy the immoral and unconstitutional opinions of federal leaders and prosecute those who assault any innocent people within their jurisdiction - this, God obligates them to do, and He will hold them accountable for it. This Heartbeat Bill excuses repeated violations of our Constitution, egregious violations of God's law, and spurns the authority of the King of Kings to bow the knee to judicial tyranny.

Lastly, the undermining of our moral authority in laws such as this may be a factor that causes the law to be undermined by the judiciary. In Justice Blackmun's Roe v. Wade decision, he criticizes the hypocrisy of Texas' anti-abortion law in order to show that the defenders of Texas' anti-abortion law do not really believe that the preborn child is a recipient of the constitutionally protected right to life. He cited the fact that there were justifications for abortion in the law - "the life of the mother." He cited the fact that the mothers were immune from prosecution and that the penalty for committing an abortion was less than the penalty for killing a born person.  Let's hear it straight from Blackmun's mouth: "It has already been pointed out... that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified... is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by... the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?"

Good questions, Justice Blackmun! The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court may be blind to justice, but they certainly weren't blind to hypocrisy.

If this Heartbeat Bill ever did make it to the Supreme Court, its exceptions and its dehumanization of the preborn may be the Achilles heel that fells it. It certainly ruins the bill in the sight of a holy God and those that favor His system of law and justice over that of hypocrites and humanists.

Well, isn't the Heartbeat Bill the best chance we have to save most of the babies slated to be slain through abortion? No, it's not. Personhood Ohio has been established to work for an amendment to the Constitution that declares that for the purposes of Ohio law, life begins at conception (or fertilization.) The standard is not arbitrary, but is biblical and is supported by science. Its sword cuts straight - it declares the preborn to be full persons under the law; therefore, any penalty for assaulting a born person would apply to those who assaulted the preborn. That law does not go so far as to give the preborn justice; no, we'll still need good leadership to do that. But it at least it is compatible with God's law and is a necessary prerequisite to justice for the preborn.

Pick a battle that God can bless, and one whose victory would abate the wrath of God against us for the shedding of innocent blood.

Visit http://www.personhoodohio.com to learn more.

Personhood Legislation in North Dakota: A Promising Challenge to Roe v. Wade

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL NO. 1572

Page 1, line 1, after "A BILL" replace the remainder of the bill with "for an Act to provide legislative intent as it relates to references to individual, person, or human being.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. References to individual, person, or human being - Legislative intent. For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens.

SECTION 2. STATE TO DEFEND CHALLENGE. The legislative assembly, by concurrent resolution, may appoint one or more of its members, as a matter of right and in the legislative member's official capacity, to intervene to defend this Act in any case in which this Act's constitutionality is challenged."

To help support the passage of this legislation, go to:

http://personhoodnorthdakota.com/faq.html

Abortion is Cold-blooded Murder

Hear Their Cry

.

Start at Perk Park/Chester Commons, Downtown Cleveland

.

End at the Wyndham Cleveland Hotel

.

.
CLEVELAND, OHIO - In anticipation of the 36th anniversary of the infamous, monstrous, and disastrous Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court decision on January 22nd, downtown Cleveland was the site of the Cleveland's 1st Annual March for Life. Despite the extreme frigid air, hundreds of people walked up 12th Street at noon joining another 40 people already at a downtown hotel for a Pro-Life rally. One woman carried a large sign one sign read "I REGRET MY ABORTION," the other side read:

Have you ever noticed that all those in favor of abortion have already been born? - Ronald Reagan

It was so cold that the pipes burst in the second floor ballroom of the Wyndham just minutes before the marchers arrived at the hotel. That was where the rally was to have been held. Some ceiling tiles and nasty brown water filled the newly remodeled and newly carpeted 2nd floor Ballroom where the Pro-Life speakers where to make their presentations. The room where the rally was relocated was too small to accommodate everyone, but everyone seemed to adjust to the circumstances. Unfortunately, we cannot just sit back and accept the horrendous plans that the new Obama administration and the liberally led Congress has in store for 2009 and beyond. We must resist. This rally showed that there is still some committed individuals even in the heart of a liberal haven like Cleveland, Ohio.

Bob Bird for U.S. Senate

With all the recent talk about Sarah Palin, McCain’s VP choice, I would like to focus on another Alaskan. Bob Bird is running for U.S. Senate as member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP). Click here to see what Governor Palin says about the AIP.

The Candidate

When asked the question, “Can you make a brief, non-religious case for banning abortion for secular libertarian readers?” Bob Bird said:

In a recent debate with me, a proabortion Democrat said that: ‘When human life begins is a religious question.’ This is nonsense. Even Planned Parenthood’s Faye Wattleton admitted ‘Of course I know that human life begins at conception.’ Each human cell has 46 chromosomes, EXCEPT the reproductive cells, which have 23. Put the sperm and egg together, and voila! Forty-six chromosomes and human life. We must always err on the side of life, when in doubt.

He believes that the President need not enforce Roe v Wade, citing Thomas Jefferson’s decision not to enforce Alien and Sedition Act, which he deemed unconstitutional. Furthermore, he acknowledges that Article III section 2 gives Congress the right to nullify most any decision that Supreme Court may make. Finally, he says that state legislatures should openly defy the court’s tyrannical decisions. Bob Bird is endorsed by the Alaska Right to Life (ARL). That is quite a feat for a non-Republican.

He believes that in the Kelo v New London case, the courts had no jurisdiction because the Fifth Amendment, in his view, only applies to federal cases.

He believes that the statehood amendment for Alaska is unconstitutional, because it granted the federal government ownership of 60% of Alaska’s land in violation of Article I, section 8, clause 17.

He believes that the war in Iraq is both unconstitutional and immoral. He is also against regulations of the Department of the Motherland Security which restrict the movement of people on Alaska’s beaches.

He believes that gun ownership is an absolute right. He understands that the Constitution mainly restricts the federal government and not state or local governments or private citizens. He would get rid of all of the wasteful unconstitutional government departments, agencies, programs, and memberships in world organizations.

The Opposition

Ted “bridges to nowhere” Stevens, self-described as “pro-choice” was among the few Republicans who joined the ranks of Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter in voting NO on a bill that would have prevented federal funds from being issued to groups that perform abortions except hospitals. He voted to express the sense of the Senate for (to approve of) Roe v Wade.

He voted for the Patriot Act three times, the military commissions act of 2006, the use of force in Iraq in 2002, and voted against measures to get out of Iraq. He voted for CAFTA (the Central American Fraud and Theft Agreement).

This is the guy who pitifully threatened to resign if he didn’t get his way on federal funding of his pork.

Stevens was also recently indicted for taking inappropriate gifts from an oil corporation. Even Palin helped to crack down on the corruption of her fellow Republican.

Conclusion

Bob Bird has an excellent chance to win this election! Click here to contribute.

Roe v. Wade, How Much Do You Know?

Less than a month ago liberals and leftists of our nation celebrated, while many social conservatives mourned and protested the passing of the 35th anniversary of the dreaded U.S. Supreme Court decision. That fateful and fatal (for millions of babies) decision launched an on-going American Atrocity. Actually it has been 35 years, 25 days since the court declared itself to be wiser than God Almighty and took the matter of life and death into their own bloody hands.

.

A HOLOCAUST OF OUR OWN
.
You can talk about the horrors committed by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Adi Amin, but now America shamefully shares company with that band of evildoers. America alone has sanctioned the killing of 45 million pre-born babies. At the bottom of this blog is an American Abortion Counter, which estimates the current number of abortions being committed by the second in the United States . . .

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH

.

The killing continues with pro-abortion candidates being served up to the American people by one political party and the other party putting forth a candidate to whom abortion and “social issues” are seemingly and relatively unimportant. More and more America is becoming a culture of death, abortion, embryonic stem cells research and euthanasia. The leading GOP candidate agrees with the pro-death Democrat candidates by favoring taxpayer funding of the destruction (killing) of human embryos (life) for this unproven, unfruitful and questionable research.

.

TAKE THE TEST

.

Last month I came across this short quiz or test, which reveals how uninformed we Americans actually are about this most heinous and notorious decision that the the godless 'Supreme' Court has ever made. If the electorate knew about the truth about abortion - that it is the limitless killing of living babies - they would not be swayed by the rhetoric of bombastic B.S. that emanates from the faces of the power-hungry self-aggrandizing culture-destroying politicians.

Take the test now and test your Roe IQ. I had two of twelve answers wrong when I took the quiz. Please let us know how well you did and what you learned about Roe using the comment button below . . .