Abby Johnson’s life was changed on October 6, 2009. That was the day that she resigned from the largest abortion corporation in the nation…Planned Parenthood.
Abby worked and volunteered for Planned Parenthood for eight years. For the last year of her employment, Christ had been working on her heart. Although she didn’t understand why, Abby had begun to question her work and the motivations of the company she had dedicated herself to for eight years.
In September 2009, she saw something that forever changed her mind on the issue of abortion. Abby was asked to assist in an ultrasound guided abortion procedure. On the ultrasound screen she saw a 13 week baby in the womb fight for its life…only to lose the battle in the end.
Not knowing where to go, Abby turned to a local pro-life resource group, The Brazos Valley Coalition for Life. She explained the events that she had witnessed and swore that she would begin to advocate for life in the womb,
instead of destroying it. Even though she had not intended on being a public figure, God had different plans.
When Planned Parenthood found out about Abby’s change of heart, they were frightened that others would hear her story and then change their minds on abortion. Their defense was to silence her with a temporary gag order and
eventually take her to court. They also decided to inform the media of their gag order.
The media were very interested in Abby’s story. A local news affiliate ran the story on the 10pm news…by Monday morning she was receiving calls from Mike Huckabee and Bill O’Reilly. On November 10, 2009, Planned Parenthood faced off with Abby in the courtroom. It was easy for the judge to see that the lawsuit was a sham. After an hour of testimony from Planned Parenthood, the judge dismissed the case on the spot.
On November 11th, Abby appeared on the O’Reilly Factor. Since her departure from Planned Parenthood, Abby has been traveling the country sharing her story and motivating others to continue the pro-life fight. She also works on projects for the national 40 Days for Life team. Abby lives in Texas with her husband and daughter.
Abby Johnson has written a book, unPlanned, which is an interesting read that gives a behind-the-scenes glimpse of Planned Parenthood. Why any Christian would believe they are harmless is beyond me!
The date is easy to remember: 9-10-11 at 7pm at Pinecrest Auditorium. The event is being underwritten by businesses and individuals who contribute $250 and get their name on the program. There is no charge to attend. An offerring to support Life Care Pregnancy Center will be taken at the close of the event.
More fascinating reading about one of the supposedly "most conservative", "most right-wing" Republican candidates.
hmmmm.....Rick Perry backed an already-climate-crusading Al Gore in '88
Let that sink in....
Obamacare has suffered a devastating blow. On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual mandate in President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation is unconstitutional. With its ruling, the court affirmed the principle that the Constitution means what it says — Congress does not have unfettered power to force the American people to comply with any and all dictates it creates.
The federal government's argument in favor of Obamacare's individual mandate, in contrast, is without limit — and it's a position that the court strongly rejected
:The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects
interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power….The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for
Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure.
The Obama Administration wasted no time in decrying the ruling, reasserting its argument
that the individual mandate is constitutional — cleverly calling it an "individual responsibility" provision and hanging its hat on an earlier
decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the law. But the significance of last week's opinion cannot be easily undone with clever wordsmithing, spin — or claims of partisanship, given that one of the authors
of the ruling, Judge Frank Hull, was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt explain
what the decision means for the President and for Obamacare's future:In short, the Obama Administration has lost its battle to delay review of the individual mandate until after the 2012 election. Until today, there was at least a chance that the Supreme Court would pass on the case until after its
forthcoming term, but now, with a split between the Eleventh Circuit and Sixth Circuit, the High Court will have little choice but to take the case and resolve the fate of the forced-purchase mandate. After over a year of delaying
tactics, the Obama Administration has no more options to slow-walk the constitutional end-game for the mandate.Our best estimate is that the case will be argued either in late March or in April, 2012. The Court will issue its decision near the end of its term in June, during the presidential candidate nominating season.
Though the Eleventh Circuit only struck down the individual mandate and related must-carry provisions, it could be the thread that unravels the sweater. And the Supreme Court's decision can't come soon enough. The more America learns about Obamacare, the worse it becomes.
Obamacare has far-reaching consequences for all corners of American society, the economy chief among them. In addition to the unconstitutional individual mandate, Obamacare includes
more than $500 billion in new taxes, burdensome new paperwork for business owners, and penalties for companies with more than 50 workers that do not provide employees with a mandated level of health coverage. And with the added costs Obamacare brings, the nation's publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher
at the end of 2020.
Heritage's Kathryn Nix writes
, "Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis
simulated the overall effects of the new law on the economy and found that Obamacare would result in reduced investment in the U.S. economy and a loss of 670,000 job opportunities every year." With 9.1 percent unemployment and an average duration of unemployment hitting a record high of 40 weeks, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is another anchor weighing it down. As Heritage analyst, Curis Dubay, explains
, the law “will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. [Obamacare] tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery.”
To date, 28 states have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare in court. A federal circuit court has struck down a central pillar of the law, holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The judges have affirmed a truth that Americans already know: When Congress passed Obamacare and the President signed it into law, they crossed a constitutional line in the sand. Fortunately, the courts are holding that line, and now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to make it final.
We had a super Moore TEA Citizens Picnic on Saturday, August 13th! The rains came, and came again - and we still gathered over 300 members and friends of Moore TEA, and we had a super time with excellent speakers and performers. What a day to prove, "We Ain't Goin' Away"!
If you came to Cannon Park and sent a note since the picnic, I'll post your notes here. If you haven't sent a note to the blog yet and want to be in touch just send a note to the blog. It's EASY!
Thanks so much for the many ways you are activists in Moore TEA, and are making a difference. Encourage your friends and neighbors to stand up and speak out for America. Bring her back from the brink by your actions to get Washington and Raleigh RIGHT!
Dee Park for Moore TEA Leaders, one and ALL!
Governor Perry has announced. He certainly makes a great speech. He's very photogenic. He's certainly saying all the right things in recent speeches and appearances. He can sound like the next Ronald Reagan to many of us hungry for a return to Constitutional Principles, limited government, and full bore conservatism.
Even Ronald Reagan, however, was not perfect. That's not the issue here, however. For our next president, this nation needs an extraordinary leader. One who is steadfastly virtuous in private and public life. One who is firmly grounded in the Constitution and who loves this Republic and Constitutional Principles more than power, personal wealth, and political career. One who rejects completely and absolutely the global governance movement, the related "Open Borders, Open Society" movement, and the so-called "New World Order".
Is that Perry? The more I read up on him, I have to say, the more and bigger doubts I have.
I have no doubt that on many issues, Perry has arrived over the course of his political career and personal life at
a conservative place. However, his political record in Texas on illegal immigration, on debt, on globalism, on eminent domain, and on amnesty tarnish what would otherwise for me be a bright and promising image.
My mind is not completely made up on this man. I'm now hoping that yours isn't, either. We need to learn more, question more, research more, and challenge more before we decide. In my mind, any of the top three presidential hopefuls currently running under the Republican label are infinitely better than what we have right now. But of the three top contenders ― Bachmann, Perry, and Romney ― only one appears to be rock-steady faithful to Constitutional principles and true to her word.
Just some food for your thought: James Richard Perry
We start with a First Principle: Those things allegedly most treasured by our nation including Liberty, justice, wealth, safety and social order arise not by chance or force, but through the institutions of Law and limited government, offered, embraced and manifest by moral, learned and spiritual minds via the collective political instruments now known as our state and federal Constitutions.
It follows naturally that the gross separation or alienation of government officials from our Constitutions must, by definition result in the death of the nation itself. Each violation heaps an additional, devastating impact on America's economy, families, moral character, global reputation and the Freedoms of its citizens. To be sure, if we permit it to happen, the material cause of the demise of Liberty and our Republic will be the cumulative damage and decay resulting from the relentless and escalating number of violations that continue to debase both our state and federal Constitutions. After all, the Constitutions, as rule books designed to govern the government, are all that stand between the People and total tyranny.
Yes, through it all and despite the damage, our democracy will survive; we will go on electing people to office, as this function is necessary in establishing any form of representative government. What will not survive, however, is the Republic of America -- designed by the greatest governing documents ever given to mankind. Simply put, absent a sea change in the People's attitude and commitment toward their Constitutions, our Republic's approaching demise is all but a certainty.
Unless a sufficient number of People decide to soon embrace our Constitutions, and learn to "connect the dots" between the specific provisions and prohibitions of Law provided therein and the malevolent, unlawful behaviors of our elected officials, we are a doomed nation, subject only to the Rule of Men and the tyranny of Power.
Unless the American People soon rekindle and accept personal responsibility to hold all elected officials accountable to those written documents, regardless of their political stripes and whether they voted for them, America's fate as a Sovereign, lawless ship, captained only by pirates and despots is sealed.
Without a collective constitutional conscience of the People, for the errant impulses of our elected officials to contend with, the (now) unbridled violations of Law will most assuredly drain the remaining life blood from the Republic.
As Jefferson said, political parties are by their nature corruptive. Without a national constitutional conscience, the loyalties of our elected officials will naturally continue to flow away from the Constitution to the Party responsible for designating them for the ballot and its self-serving platforms and objectives. As Jefferson also said, the People are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. Without a national constitutional conscience, the collective belief of the People will continue to be the naive cry of all democracies, i.e., "If you don't like what is going on, vote for someone else".
In truth, elections are the crudest form of organized political exercise possible by a "free" People and are the instrument of participation employed by all pure democracies. Elections, in essence, are the tool of those that control the political process, the levers of government and the status quo. Elections, if relied upon as the sole method of exercising the powers of Popular Sovereignty, serve only the will of the majority and the chosen recipients of government beneficence.
Despite the necessity of electing those who wield governmental power, it is the malicious use of elections by which pure democracies sustain the illusion of Liberty, while Individual Rights, i.e., those superior, unalienable Rights and political protections which define the heart of a true Republic, wither and dissolve.
Again, our Constitutions are our Law. They are all that stand between the People and total tyranny.
The Constitution is not a menu and cannot defend itself. That's up to us, the People.
We the People Foundation
Progressive Left has been trying to rewrite early American history for decades now. For the Progressive Left to accomplish their goals, the American public ― especially the electorate ― must be separated from their history. They must be made to dismiss or even disdain the Founders and to reject the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights as dusty old documents which were written by nasty bigoted old white men whose works must now be "reinterpreted" and replaced by "modern" ideas. (Ideas such as Marxism, which is one of the oldest, consistently failed ideas ― much older than Marx himself.)
Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest heroes of the American Founding. His ideas and principles of liberty, justice, and small government were revered and discussed in detail by the entire population of these United States for its first 100 years of existence. But once the Progressive movement began to rise after the War Between the States, and particularly upon its flowering with the elections of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the Progessive attacks on the Founders became virulent.
The favorite tactic of the Progressives with regard to Thomas Jefferson is always to say that he was a bigoted hypocrite whose words and works should be disdained because he owned slaves. How could his lofty ideas of freedom and individual liberty be meaningful coming from a slave owner? And, there are the still unconfirmed but always loud accusations that Jefferson fathered an illegitimate child with a slave mistress. Therefore, he is evil, right?
Let's consider the facts:
Slavery was obtruded on the Colonies by King George III. Jefferson inherited slaves. it was against the law to free them. When it was permitted for those individual slaves who could be self-supporting, freed slaves must leave the State within a year, thus separating families.
1769: Chosen for the first time to be a member of a legislature, Thomas Jefferson made one effort in the House of
Burgesses for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, but was rejected.
1770: As a lawyer, Thomas Jefferson defended a slave, saying: "Under the law of nature, all men are born free."
1776: He strongly condemned slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence.
1778: The legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia.
1784: His draft of what became the Northwest Ordinance stipulated that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude"
in any of the new states admitted to the Union from the Northwest Territory.
1806: President Jefferson requested Congress to ban all slave importation to the US.
1807: As President, Jefferson signed a bill abolishing the slave trade: On March 3, 1807, as President of
the USA, Thomas Jefferson signed a bill making slave importation illegal in the United States.
While Jefferson did not free all of his slaves on his death (as did Washington), a law passed in Virginia in 1806
required that the legislature pass a special bill that would attest to the exemplary behavior of each slave to be freed. If freed, THE SLAVE HAD TO LEAVE THE STATE WITHOUT HIS OR HER FAMILY. Jefferson tried unsuccessfully to get this law changed. Further, Jefferson trained his slaves in skills that would be useful when they were free. He believed that to free them first would be irresponsible since they would be homeless and without family.
So, the next time you hear lies about Jefferson, you can recognize those falsehoods for the fabrications they are, meant only to advance the Progressive Agenda. You can call them out for lies and understand that the intent is a direct attack on the Constitution and on your Individual Liberty.
But as more and more of the American People are Awakening now to the internal threat which pervades even our own government, the attacks have escalated. Even now, the Smithsonian Institute has been corrupted and become complicit in the propaganda war of the Left: Smithsonian's New Smear Exhibit on Thomas Jefferson
In light of today’s worldwide anti-capitalist rumbling and renewed feverish interest in leftist redistributive systems, one wonders – just how old is the collectivist idea?
For an example you've probably never heard before, consider the history of the late 14th century English court of King Richard II, a time presumed fully known by historians for going on six hundred years now
King Richard was influenced by the thinkers of his age including Chaucer and Philippe de Mezieres, a French clergyman. Philippe de Mezieres was a proponent of the
Crusades and an author and thinker who in his later years presented the young Richard with a book. As an advocate of Christian crusader war, de Mezieres was an unlikely source of proto-communist thinking; nevertheless it is there.
Philippe de Mezieres proposed the abolition of all personal property, on the grounds that the King serves as the "father" to the people and has complete responsibility for their welfare.
Of course, without the context that the future Republican age would provide, de Mezieres is understandably unable to imagine a working government without a king and so he weaves one into the fictional utopia he invented to educate the young English monarch. There in the “Delectable Garden,” as de Mezieres himself puts it: “All fruits were held in common by the inhabitants, to each according to his need, and the words ‘my own’ were never heard. These people lived so happily together, they never seemed to grow old. All tyranny and harsh rule was banished from the Garden, though there was a king, who stood for authority and the common good, and he was so loved and looked up to that he might have been the father of each and all. And no wonder, for he had such concern for the welfare of his subjects, dwellers in the Garden, that neither he nor his children owned anything in person.”
Given what we know of prideful and competitive human nature, this is of course wishful thinking. But did you see it? “To each according to his need." Karl Marx would famously expand upon that phrase five centuries later with:
”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is of course highly doubtful that Marx read de Mezieres, who did not remain known after his time.
But the communist idea itself is here, occurring to people down through the ages, probably since the beginning. I am not a literary man, but after this experience I am sure such men can find other even older examples of this thought.
The idea a 14th century Christian crusade activist would dream of a benevolent king ruling over a perfect and happy communist society isn’t as crazy as it sounds. The vision is as if Adam and Eve had not eaten the apples. And we know confused Christian thought yields raw material for today’s Jim Wallis-type communists; “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s", “what you do for the least of these you have done for Me” ― and so forth.
Reading the same ideas in their Bibles, the early American colonists tried collectivism as a means of producing and sharing staples for survival in their New World. They abandoned collectivism after it failed miserably and they nearly starved. “From each according to his ability” never quite kept up with “to each according to his need".
In fact the American holiday called Thanksgiving is quite literally a prayer of thanks to God for the idea of each man producing for himself and his family on his own land. This was the individual freedom to produce and trade, an idea that was inaccurately named (by Karl Marx of all people) “capitalism". It is better understood when it is named “economic liberty.”
On the way to finishing this absorbing tale of proto-communism in King Richard's reign, this is one of the book’s best lessons:
Marxism is NOT NEW, not just a product of the post-Darwin modern age, although Darwin certainly gave Marx an assist; once a believable alternative to the Creation story was floated, the nature of man could be remade in accordance with wishful thinking. In Stalin’s USSR it had a name: “the new Soviet man". But it would not surprise me to discover essentially communist thought in every age. There are always those among us willing to make themselves believe man is essentially noble and needs only a change of circumstances, a “punishing of the cruel and greedy” and abandonment of the traditions that made them, to live in heaven on earth. In 1395, Philippe de Mezieres thought “to each according to his need” was perfection.
But we all tend to disagree about what our needs are and we tend to place a higher priority on our own needs than on the needs of our neighbors, let alone our adversaries. It is human nature, and human nature simply cannot be changed. The Founders were right to encourage “enlightened self-interest"; mankind is not equipped for perfection
and will not attain it on this earth ― and the foundational premises for American government have proven themselves again and again as the best way to ensure that prosperity, peace, strength and decency are features of American
Marxist thought is very old, much older than Marx. American freedom is still unique and new in history and still providing examples of just how well human beings can live and prosper together. We would be wise to study and appreciate our own success, instead of dismissing it with disdain in a mad rush to once again embrace a foolish, failed and disastrous old idea.
Don't dismiss it as paranoid fiction. De-bunk it if you think it's wrong.
OK. Perry has announced. The Tea Party appears to be divided mostly among Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Santorum. A few confused souls still swoon over Romney's smile and handsome visage. Perry sure looks good on many fronts. The day of prayer that he recently sponsored was great! He's given some rousing, conservative speeches ― some of which have been posted in this very blog.
But, all along, there have been rumblings out of Texas. The Tea Party there is split, and some are very much opposed to Rick Perry. Why? Well, I haven't made up my mind yet on Perry. And, he's been a popular governor of that state. And there's a lot to be said for the judgment of the Texan electorate.
But ― and this is a BIG but ― we've been fooled before, remember? And if there is this much smoke and "fragrance" of something not right, I believe it's time to do our research. There are too many red flags about this man for my comfort.I'm not at all holding the article below up as Truth
― that's what we all must begin to research for ourselves.
But I am going to urge you to read it as a red flag. Let's be very careful this time to properly vet and select the best candidate! The very existence of our Republic is at stake this time around ― not just its future. Is Perry a true Constitutional Conservative? Is he the best candidate to represent Tea Party values and principles? Is he?
Read: Enemy of National Sovereignty
Here is another good resource for learning of Perry's historical positions on various issues: Political Positions of Rick Perry
And an opinion piece raises interesting questions in need of validation or refutation: 14 Reasons