Dear Evil Women Who Abort Their Babies…

 

Dear abortionists,

You are evil. Yes, this is directed toward both the doctors performing the horrific procedures and the women making the heinous, murderous decision allowing them to do so. Yeah, yeah I know. I can already hear the #SJW feminists foaming at the mouth. I can also hear all of their complicit, wimpy Christian allies demanding the need for “compassion” and understanding.

You deserve neither.

Everyone deserves forgiveness, absolutely. But your ending of a baby’s life deserves no compassion. Inhumane acts merit no human “understanding.” We all tip-toe around this. Why? Why, when the issues that modern leftists seem willing to tackle head-on are quite trivial by comparison?

See, you’re likely reading this column because to some varying degree, it’s shocking. After all, who am I to call anyone “evil”? That’s a pretty darn strong statement. What makes me so sure? What gives me the right?

Well, let me take a stab at it (pun not intended). We use the word “evil” so often, it’s lost all meaning. Take Obama’s colleagues at the poverty summit this week, who accused Conservatives of practicing “evil”. How so? By cutting funding to extracurricular activities like band and chess club. I know, I know. Individual states might actually have to pay for their own unused percussion instruments and oboes? What are we, animals?

One need only take a passing glance at Twitter to observe literally thousands of leftists calling Darren Wilson evil. Their justification? Darren Wilson shot Mike Brown… in what was ruled to be self-defense. Ah yes. There’s a special place in hell reserved for people like him.

So then why, I ask again, should it be any more shocking for me to place the moniker of “evil” squarely on the shoulders of women who “choose” to have scissors jammed into their baby’s head and ultimately see it sucked down a tube?

Listen, there was a time in this country when I believed that you abortionists truly thought you were arguing the point of “where life beings.”  But as the science is increasingly revealed, I become more convinced that you know where life begins…you’d just rather have the right to kill a baby anyway.

Well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens acknowledged that abortion was the equivalent of murder. Even Richard Dawkins did so (albeit unknowingly). If you look at leftist enclaves in Europe or even Canada who find themselves further along the progressive trail, feminist-warriors have nearly always, without exception, pushed for abortion up until well into the third trimester. This is well beyond the point of scientific debate as to whether the baby is significantly developed, can feel pain, or, in some cases, even survive outside of the womb.

To abortionists, it matters not. I call that evil.

Liberal politicians always use the “Well, of course abortion is bad, but” line when addressing the issue. But they don’t believe it for a second. It’s why they champion the fact that today, 1 in 3 women have an abortion in their lifetime. They’ve created a campaign around it. I don’t know exactly why. Perhaps it makes abortionists feel less alone when dealing with their more-than-likely depression and/or psychological disorders experienced later in life.  But I’m sure that this statistically observable data will be chalked up to nothing more than guilt resulting from false societal constructs of morality. Cue the social justice warrior alarm.

Yes, we live in a world where it is seen as more callous to state the observable ramifications of performing a murder… than it is to perform the act of murder. We find ourselves in a time where it is seen as more sexist to condemn the act of sex-selective abortion… than it is to perform sex-selective abortion.

I’m supposed to tip-toe around this because it’s considered offensive to not–particularly to the women reading this who may be thinking about having an abortion, or have already had one.

That’s the point where we ultimately end up. I’m not supposed to call you evil because it is offensive.

That’s not enough. To you, I say consider your “offense” merely a product of “societal construct,” as it’s certainly much more imaginary than the life you aim to take. If I offend people willing to take innocent life, good. I have plenty of friends; I could use a few enemies. That means you.

…you evil abortionists.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch This Abortion Advocate’s Responses That Had Him Begging Interviewer Not To Air

The largest turnout ever participated in the March for Life in Ottawa, Canada on Saturday, marking the anniversary of abortion’s legalization in the country 46 years ago.

The practice became legal in Canada four years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in all 50 states.

According to Life Site News, an estimated 4 million babies have been aborted in Canada since it became legal; the current rate is about 100,000 annually. There are no restrictions on abortions in the country such as those found in various states in the U.S., including bans on partial-birth abortion for late-term pregnancies, parental consent, informed consent (requiring mothers to be shown an ultrasound of image their unborn child), and waiting periods.

Approximately 25,000 pro-life marchers converged on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Saturday to advocate for the life of the unborn. Also on hand were perhaps 50 counter-demonstrators, who want the laws to remain as they are.

Image Credit: Twitter/@JackFonsec

Image Credit: Twitter/@JackFonsec

Rebel Media’s Marissa Semkiw interviewed one of the counter-demonstrators, who was holding up a sign which read: “Guess What, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own F—ing Business.”

Semkiw probed the man, Alex, to see just what his beliefs were regarding abortion. One of the issues on the pro-life agenda in Canada is instituting some restrictions on abortion like those found in the U.S.

She first asked him if he would be ok with a woman aborting her child one month before it was due.

Alex said he would, stating, “That’s her decision again.”

He had the same answer for one week.

“A day?” she asked.

“Also her decision,” Alex said.

He elaborated: “It’s not for me or any member of Parliament or religious institution organization to tell her otherwise.”

The interviewer then turned to killing the child after it is born: “How about post-natal abortion?”

He responded: “Post-natal abortion? I mean – if that’s the option- that’s the option.”

“But, again, I’m not advocating murder of any kind,” he continued.

Alex later had misgivings about his responses and asked Rebel Media not to air the interview. Semkiw’s response was: too bad. She said he came to a public place during a pro-life event, counter-demonstrated holding up his sign, and agreed to the interview, and that his views are representative by-in-large of many on his side of the debate.

Life Site News reports regarding the event overall:

More than 30 parliamentarians, both MPs and Senators, also spoke, including retired Liberal MP Pat O’Brien, who told the crowds that from his former office in Parliament he could see rallies throughout the year, and that the March for Life was by far the largest. He said MPs need courage because they are under “enormous pressure … not to speak out” on controversial issues like abortion and euthanasia.

Campaign Life Coalition’s Jeff Gunnarson, whose group organized the event, said the March’s theme “Let Life Win” is intended to acknowledge “the fact that hearts and minds must change before the laws will change. We have to have a groundswell of support that says, we need to have this abortion stopped, then you have the courage of the MPs to change.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A Warning To American Christians: You ‘Must Be Made’ To Obey

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives’ words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

When they don’t like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have, and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words “marriage” and “equality.”

Other “progressive” doublespeak includes words like “invest” (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), “tolerance” (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), “diversity” (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), “hate” (meaning truth), or “The Affordable Care Act” (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable, and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,” is abundantly clear.

He doesn’t.

Our emperor-in-chief will force-feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton’s comments last month on the “rite” of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

Reports LifeNews:

The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

That’s a lot of “have tos.” See the pattern here? Whether it’s Obama saying government will “have to change how the media reports,” or Hillary saying “deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed,” such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians “must be made” to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’” he writes. “His commandment is worthy – and warranted,” he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both “vile affections” and “an abomination” throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest, and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

“But this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech!” come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. “Hate speech is excluded from protection,” opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth; and as I’ve often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left’s full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it’s at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We’re fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and “progressive” leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn’t despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind’s only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response–and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement, and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies “the beginning of birth pains” (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from.

This quotation stemmed from Niemöller’s lectures during the early postwar period. His point was that Germans and, in particular, the leaders of the Protestant churches had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

Martin Niemöller was one of the first Germans to talk publicly about the broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews. In his book, published in English as “Of Guilt and Hope” in January of 1946, Niemöller wrote:

Thus, whenever I chance to meet a Jew known to me before, then, as a Christian, I cannot but tell him: ‘Dear Friend, I stand in front of you, but we cannot get together, for there is guilt between us. I have sinned and my people has sinned against thy people and against thyself.’

Although he did suffer, spending the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, he still recognized his own guilt for not speaking out against tyranny.

In fact, we could rewrite Niemöller’s quote quite well for today’s church leaders. It would probably go something like this:

First they came for prayer in school, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a student. Nor did I ever look into the fact that the Supreme Court is not above the law (Article 3, Sections 1 of The United States Constitution (Ephesians 6:18)).

Then they came to murder the unborn in their mother’s womb, and I did not speak out— Because I was not an unborn child. After all, I was told that the Supreme Court could sanction the murder of the innocent in the womb by simply calling it a woman’s choice (Proverbs 6:17).

Then they came for the legalization of two men or two woman getting “married” to upend America’s sovereignty and I did not speak out (as if to say the Supreme court injustices have a God given right to redefine what God Himself designed)— because I did not want to be called a hater or a bigot (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me, because I never spoke out for anyone else (let alone God) (Ezekiel 3).

It is disgraceful what we are not seeing from the pulpits in America today. Rather than seeing a thunderous barrage of righteous indignation against murder of the unborn, and zeal against tyranny, injustice, immorality, we are hearing virtually nothing from over 300,000 pulpits…silence (Zechariah 1:15).

“To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men.”

We hear Church leaders (1 Corinthians 12:28) say, “Well, I don’t speak out against anything political.” The murder of innocent children, political? Homosexual marriage, political? A corrupt, wicked, and lawless administration that means to destroy your country and religious freedom, political?

Here we see in Niemöller a man who could not change the destruction that took place in the lives of millions of people. Prevention would have been better than curing. He could not go back in time and right the wrongs, but America still can.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out. And at that point, you can rest assured that others may sing loud enough to drown out your cries.

Study The Past:

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Calling Evil Good And Good Evil: End Times Are Here!

2500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah issued this warning in the ancient scroll bearing his name in chapter 5, verse 20:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Ancient scriptures that talk about horrendous judgment against people and nations who don’t heed this warning and others like it are too numerous to list.

So let’s see just how close our modern culture is to completely thumbing its nose at our Creator and His warnings to us.

Modern culture portrays being a pure virgin woman as bad–but dressing and acting slutty is good.

Marriage solely between man and woman is now called bad–but homosexual/same-sex marriage is called good.

Killing animals is called evil–but murdering innocent, pre-born children in their mother’s wombs through abortion is called good.

Being too lazy to work is called good and is rewarded with welfare–but working hard enough to be rich is called bad, and bad, rich people must be taxed to give their money to people who don’t work. This is the opposite of scriptural teaching that if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat.

And this is just scratching the surface. So with America embracing evil and shunning good, is it any wonder we have so many problems today? How could we have so quickly changed from a nation embracing morality to a country literally begging to be destroyed?

Isaiah’s warning bears repeating: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

If you want to see America reverse course and head toward moral sanity, please forward a link of this video to others. Thank you.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth