truth
Man Tricks Girlfriend Into Taking Abortion Pill, But Why The Murder Charge?
So this guy is charged with murder for allegedly tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion pill. He apparently switched the pills inside her bottle of prescription drug with the abortion pills after she refused to abort the baby at his insistence. My question is why the murder charge? If the fetus is not viable in the eyes of the court in the case of an abortion with a consenting woman, what changes it to viable in the case of a non-consenting woman?
My point: it’s either a human being, or it isn’t. The differentiation between whether the woman wants the child or not doesn’t change the fact that it is a living person being destroyed in the most inhumane way. Why else would Kermit Gosnell have to sever the spines of abortion survivors or shove their bodies into jars of poison if they were not living?!
These morbid scenarios occur largely because we have allowed them to. Premarital sex has become the norm, and with it abortion as it destroys 1/3 of children born in the United States. The outrage regarding these crimes has been stifled by a willfully silent media, and a largely uninterested public. How long will the atrocity of human sacrifice to the god of convenience to continue? As long as we let it.
Read the full story here.
Inhuman: Undercover in America’s Late-Term Abortion Industry
Gregory Hicks’ 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack
4 Things I Learned from the Benghazi Hearing
So these are the 4 things I learned from watching the Benghazi hearing.
1. Ambassador Stevens called former deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks saying that the Embassy was “under attack” just before the cell phone call was disrupted.
2. Ambassador Stevens was taken to an enemy hospital.
3. The crime scene was not secured and the FBI was not allowed to go in for 17 days. This was the direct result of UN Ambassador from the US Susan Rice and her statement that the attack was actually a protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video. She essentially called the president of Libya a liar for calling the incident a terror attack, embarrassing and infuriating him.
4. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson is the man that knows who gave the order to stand down during the attack.
My Random 2016 Thoughts
Translating the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence makes several definitive statements regarding the rights of the people and where those rights come from. First, the Declaration acknowledges that the source of rights is the Creator, calling them the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Second, it claims that all men are created equally free to govern their own actions, thus requiring the consent of the governed in order for just government. Being unwilling to recognize these truths, the British government had failed in it’s sole duty of government of securing the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for the people, according to the Founding Fathers.
These ideals come in direct opposition to modern liberal and Progressive thought. For instance, the Declaration states that “all men are created equal,” meaning that they are all born with the same human rights that the government needs to respect. The modern liberal or Progressive definition is that men are not created equal and the government needs to step in via redistribution and make them equal. These definitions are fundamentally incompatible, and one cannot coexist with the other.
This concept of unequal wealth distribution reflecting the inequality of rights is not simply an idea dreamed up by modern day politicians like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Karl Marx, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson are only a few historical names associated with this Progressive ideology. According to Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Necessitous men are not free men,” meaning that poor men are not free. This notion is flawed in that simply because a man is poor does not mean he is prevented by government from being wealthy. It may mean that circumstances or a down economy caused his lack of wealth. Or it may mean that he is unwilling to do the work in order to be prosperous. As long as all men have the opportunity to choose what to do with their lives, they are free from government tyranny.
Why Should We Care About the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important founding documents of the United States. However, in modern days it becomes overlooked–why should we care about the complaints of some colonists over 200 years ago against a king long dead? What I have come to realize is that the Declaration is the heart and soul of the United States; it defines it’s purpose as a whole.
Thomas Jefferson said that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to express and justify the position of independence that the colonies were taking against the British government. It acknowledges the fact that human beings have certain “unalienable rights” simply by being born, from “nature and nature’s God.” This is the foundation of the Unites States–the idea that the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [property]” are inherent to the people that can neither be given or taken away by the government.
The best way to look at the Declaration of Independence is in the context put by Abraham Lincoln. He called the principle “Liberty to all”, embodied by the Declaration, the “apple of gold.” He also called the Constitution the “frame of silver.” Lincoln said that the frame of silver (the Constitution) was made to “adorn” and “preserve” the “apple of gold” (the principle “Liberty to all”). The frame is not to take precedence over the apple, but exists to perpetuate the existence of the apple.
Ultimately, the reason that the Constitution is so easily being dismantled, is because we have forgotten what its purpose is: to protect and preserve the principle “Liberty to all.” The Declaration of Independence is still crucially important to American society because it reminds us of the principles that define the United States and gives us a sense of urgency to uphold its constitution.
An Old Testament Look at Homosexuality
Far too frequently do I hear people advocating the atrocity of homosexual marriage. Shockingly, 
many of these gay rights activists also claim to be Christians. These are people that we sit next to in church, who claim to read the Bible and are seen doing what would seem to be “Christian” things.
These so called “Christian” gay rights activists seem to interpret God’s love as tolerance for anything that we do. To them this includes tolerance of non-Biblical lifestyles that other so called believers and non-believers may lead.
This belief is diametrically opposite to what the Bible really says concerning homosexuality and any other ungodly lifestyle for that matter. Genesis 13:13 states that, “[…] the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.” Scrolling down to Genesis 19:5-7 we find that among their many sins was homosexuality. “They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, ‘No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.'” Verses 24-25 outline Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah’s punishment. “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.” Obviously, God is not “tolerant” of sinful lifestyles.
So how should Christians treat gay rights activists? Well how would you treat anyone who is about to burn their hand on a stove? Warn them of what they are doing before it is too late. The best way you can help someone is by telling them the truth.
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32
WarriorWoman91 