Yes to Little Spirits in Heaven – No to Little Spirits on Earth

Rev M. Bresciani

Over four decades ago I had a dream vision of many of the details of the second coming of Christ. It sent me on a lifetime quest to find out all I could about this great coming event. Today I am far from alone as more people than ever are having visions, dreams and revelations about this wonderful change coming to the world.

One of the side benefits of the call to the prophetic ministry is the ability to discern the dreams, visions and revelations of others. Sometimes it may just be a Freudian thing or that someone ate a sour pickle before retiring for the night that brought on an apparition. At other times God has clearly spoken and even when the recipient of the vision is not sure God has spoken, I am.

I have always treaded cautiously when I hear someone has had a revelation for obvious reasons. Some revelation is false and very misleading. I don’t haphazardly accept everything I hear but I am also reticent to dismiss a matter too quickly. I have often been guided by what the Pharisees concluded when listening to the Apostle Paul’s rendering of the gospel and the vision of Jesus Christ he had as he traveled on the road to the city of Damascus.

The Pharisees decided not to look too harshly at Paul because they could be seriously mistaken and thus be bucking the very God they were supposed to represent. They concluded by saying “We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (Acts 23:9b)

One of the most powerful and inspiring visions I have ever encountered came to a Louisiana based preacher and evangelist, Jesse Duplantis. Jesse is a Cajun born Louisiana native who had in his former life run the gamut of drugs, booze and rock and roll. He is now at the center of one of the most dynamic Spirit lead ministries in the nation.

In a CD available through his ministry based in Destrehan Louisiana entitled “Close Encounters of the God Kind,” Jesse tells of the five and a quarter hour experience he had being escorted around heaven by various angelic and patriarchal figures.

He has traveled the nation and the globe telling people about his heavenly encounter while preaching the gospel to thousands. It would be nearly impossible to cover all that he saw and heard in one article but one single part of the vision that is most startling cannot be overlooked in the ongoing moral and legal battle against the scourge of abortion in America.

It should be noted that Duplantis has not used the particular aspects of his heavenly visitation to hone in on abortion proponents in particular. It is my special interest in that part of his visit that is the impetus for these observations and the fact that this is the only generation in world history that seems so perfectly comfortable with 150 million abortions worldwide with 50 million of those here in the United States.

In fact according to Jesse the single command Jesus was said to have given him was simply to tell his people that he was going to return very soon. Duplantis argued with Christ about that saying “Lord your people already know that.”  That’s when Jesus gently rebuked him with the retort “no they don’t Jesse.”

While face down before God the Father Jesse found he could not rise and stand because of the sheer power emanating from God’s throne. What he was able to see was tiny spirits emerging from God’s throne perhaps generated by his thoughts alone that came forth eager to go to earth and become living spirits. They would actually ask God if they could go and become part of his plan.

As I listened to the Evangelists narrative of his visit I envisioned the thousands of little spirits being transferred to the earth where they would take up residence in the tiny little human beings being formed in the wombs of women around the globe. In my mind’s eye I could also see the thousands of them were being rejected and sent back to where they came from without a chance to begin life here with the rest of humanity.

My thoughts were not a heavenly vision from God; rather they were simply an earthly vision based on the hard cold and selfish social climate of the day. No one can claim that the Evangelists vision was any less true than mine and if we all thought about it, than yours.

I have spent the last forty and more years telling people about my own visions of the second coming of Christ and although I have had no visions having to do with little spirits and subsequent abortions I can say I have followed the abortion question every step of the way since the inception of Roe V. Wade in 1973.

I can say that I have never heard an argument for abortion that could hold a single drop of water. To the abortionist it is a choice but to the little spirits who so willingly come to face the existence here it is the rejection of their choice. Long before I heard of Jesse’s vision I wondered what the little unborn child would say if it could answer for itself? I have never doubted that it would say; I want to live.

Even the idea that it is a woman’s right to decide about her own body leaves the mind and spirit void of satisfaction. If a woman wanted to rip up part of her body and throw it away and we knew of it we would have her committed to some facility for her own protection and given treatment until she finally gave up the notion of self mutilation. Why is an unborn child any different? If it is only an extension of the woman’s body shouldn’t that be protected even from her?

No argument for abortion can sooth the conscience of man because there is a thirst for life in all of us that we know exists in all of humanity at any stage not just when we emerge and begin to grow up. These matters are on a much higher level than mere acquired intelligence or even common sense; they are a product of a far more primal and universal human quality known as instinct.

After viewing the vision of Jesse Duplantis I will forever believe that it is even above mere instinct. I believe it is a spiritual quest to live that is supernaturally or divinely implanted in every human spirit that wants to live for the glory of God.

One thing is certain. In heaven Duplantis saw nothing destroyed or harmed. Even as he walked on beds of gorgeous flowers his feet did not harm them. No life is destroyed, harmed or threatened in the presence of God. Perhaps we should learn this great lesson and remind ourselves of it again and again each time we say these famous words.

“…Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” Matthew 6:10

http://www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight  Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe.

Keywords:

Thy will be done,Duplantis,Jesse Duplantis,Freudian,vision,apparition,abortion,Roe V. Wade,unborn,Louisiana,Destrehan,Damascus,Cajun,Christ,evangelist

Read more >>

‘Choice’ Means Allowing Women to Make a Different One

By Doug Patton

University of Florida quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother are about to learn the same lesson Todd and Sarah Palin and their family learned during the 2008 campaign. That lesson is that you had better not bring your pro-life message into the public square — especially if you have lived it. That, of course, is what pro-abortion advocates fear most. Anyone willing to make the sacrifice to give life to someone society would just as soon discard threatens the order of things for them.

Like Sarah Palin’s fifth baby, Trig, Tim Tebow would never have been born had so-called pro-choice advocates had their way. Tim’s mother, Pam Tebow, was a missionary in the Philippines when she was pregnant with him in 1987. Tim was also her fifth baby. When Pam Tebow became ill during the pregnancy, her doctor advised her to have an abortion. She chose instead to give her baby life, and that baby grew up to be perhaps one of the finest athletes of his generation.

During this year’s Super Bowl, Pam Tebow will appear in a commercial celebrating her decision to give her son life, and this has liberals in a snit. After all, no one is supposed to challenge the orthodoxy of the Left. The spot is sponsored by Focus on the Family, one of the finest pro-family organizations in the country. Founded more than thirty years ago by Dr. James Dobson, this group has worked tirelessly to promote life and the family in America, but to hear the pro-abortion radicals on the left talk, one would think that the organization was some sort of Nazi hate group devoted to destroying anyone who disagrees with them. They have been called “divisive” because they believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that life begins at conception and should end at natural death. What radical concepts.

One leftist wag called Focus “a Christian hate group.” Another called them “anti-choice.” But it is the other side that is decidedly “anti-choice” because the only choice acceptable to them is abortion. Women like Pam Tebow and Sarah Palin are supposed to make the choice to kill their babies, and when they don’t, they become a threat to the whole house of cards that the abortion rights movement has always been.

A coalition of narrow-minded liberal groups led by the New York-based Women’s Media Center, backed by the National Organization for Women (which purports to speak for all American women despite the fact that their membership numbers are in the low six figures), the Feminist Majority Foundation and other groups, urged CBS to scrap the Tebow ad. “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year — an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jehmu Greene, president of the Women’s Media Center.

Television’s cruelest dimwit, Joy Behar, pointed out that Tim Tebow could just as easily grown up to be a rapist pedophile. Apparently, on the strength of that possibility, Pam Tebow should have aborted baby Tim while she had the chance.

The truth, of course, is that it is the left that hates anyone who dares to show the world that there is another alternative to the cheap, cowardly shortcut of abortion. Their pro-death dogma, masquerading as “the right to choose,” has created a climate where traditional values and a reverence for life are now considered “controversial.” When those with a different worldview live out their values and celebrate their choice, they are vilified, mocked, disdained and despised. And they call us hateful.   

Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor.

Read more >>

Obama Budget: Slush Fund For Abortion Industry

Overlooks success of abstinence programs

February 3, 2010 – President Obama's 2011 budget proposal will be a slush fund for the abortion industry, not only in the U.S., but around the world.

If approved as proposed, the Obama budget will provide funding for the UNFPA, a United Nations agency that supports China's gruesome one-child policy and other pro-abortion activities around the world.

In addition, the budget will provide taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of unborn children in the District of Columbia.

The Obama budget will also provide funding for the Legal Services Corporation to fund individuals involved in pro-abortion litigation.

Title X is the federal government's family planning program. Federal spending for Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10), the budget was at $317,491,000. The FY11 request is an increase of $10 million to a total of $317,356,000. Much of this funding goes to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups for “family planning” activities.

In addition, the FY11 budget calls for a continuation of the funding of international family planning activities. The FY10 budget was $648,457,000.

Eliminated Abstinence Education Funds

Before his election, President Obama promised to eliminate funds for abstinence education. He kept his promise. His FY2010 budget eliminated funds for the Community Based Abstinence Education and Title V Abstinence Education Program.

In his 2010 budget, Obama called for $164 million for contraceptive-only education. It includes $50 million for new mandatory condom grants to states, tribes, and territories.

On February 2, 2010, a new study was released showing that abstinence education reduces teen sexual activity while conventional safe sex programs had no positive effects. The study appeared in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

The study was conducted by Drs. John and Loretta Jermmott from the University of Pennsylvania and Geoffrey Fong of the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada.

The study showed positive health benefits from abstinence education and reduced self-reported sexual involvement among African-American students in grades six and seven.

The abortion industry, however, continues to push condoms and high-risk sexual behaviors among teenagers. They are sex peddlers who profit from teen pregnancies. They sell condoms and abortions for profit.

The study is available in full text on the Abstinence Clearinghouse web site, an excellent source of reliable information on abstinence education. 

Clearly, Obama is a pro-abortion President who wants to use millions of taxpayer dollars to serve as a slush fund for abortionists. And, he is doing whatever he can to defund effective abstinence education.

Read more >>

NYC clinic probed after woman dies during abortion

Detectives are investigating a Queens clinic where a 37-year-old woman was fatally injured while undergoing an abortion, officials said Tuesday.

Alexandra Nuñez began bleeding heavily during the procedure at A1 Medicine in Jackson Heights on Monday, officials said.

One of Nuñez's arteries was inadvertently severed and she went into cardiac arrest, according to police sources.

She was taken to Elmhurst Hospital Center, where she died a short time later.

Detectives have interviewed the staff at the Roosevelt Ave. clinic, but no charges have been filed, police said.

"There is an investigation going forward," said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, "but as of yet, there's no indication of any criminality."

Nuñez, a single mother of four who lived in Plainfield, N.J., underwent the procedure at 3:30p.m., police said.

She had told her family that she was going to a doctor's office in Newark to have a cyst removed - and her death stunned her eldest daughter.

"I'm upset because I never got a chance to say goodbye," said Daisy Davila, 19. "She didn't want anyone to go with her. I made dinner and lunch [yesterday] hoping she would come back."

"We're not angry. We just want to know what happened," said Davila, who insisted that her mother did not believe in abortions. "She was a strong woman, always happy. I looked up to her."

An employee at the clinic - a one-stop gynecology and plastic surgery clinic that was still seeing patients yesterday - insisted that everything had gone well at the second-floor medical facility.

"The patient was transferred to the hospital, she didn't die at the clinic," said the woman, who refused to give her name. "Nothing happened here."

A1 Medicine was accredited in July to do office-based surgery that requires moderate or deep anesthesia - and that includes abortions, according to a spokeswoman for the state Health Department.

Read more >>

The Truth About Abortion

By Chuck Baldwin

Today marks the 37th anniversary of the infamous US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide.

The aftermath of this tragic ruling is the deaths of over 40 million (a very conservative number) innocent unborn babies. It is no hyperbole to say abortion is America's holocaust. Think of it, every American citizen today, 37 years old or younger, has never known a country that respected and protected innocent human life in the womb. Put it another way: when Hitler's Third Reich was at its zenith, the abortion rate was 40%. In 2003 (the last year that I checked), the abortion rate of the county in which I live was 39%. And I live in the heart of the so-called "Bible Belt." In fact, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be in America is not in an automobile without wearing a seat belt, or in a commercial airliner with a potential terrorist on board. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be is in the womb of one's mother.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson once headed America's largest abortion clinic in New York City. He admitted superintending over the killing of 75,000 unborn babies. He later recanted his pro-abortion activity and wrote what may be the quintessential book defending an unborn child's right to life, "Aborting America." Dr. Nathanson said, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy."

Dr. Mildred Jefferson was a surgeon at Boston University Medical Center, a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery with many honors and awards. She said, "Many people try to hide behind the confusion of not knowing what happens before a baby is born. But we do not have to be confused. We in medicine and science have a different name for every stage of the development of the baby, but it does not matter at all whether you know those names or not. When a young woman has not had much opportunity to go to school and she becomes pregnant, no one has to tell her that she is going to have a baby.

"I became a doctor in the tradition that is represented in the Bible of looking upon medicine as a high calling. I will not stand aside and have this great profession of mine, of the doctor, give up the designation of healer to become that of the social executioner. The Supreme Court Justices only had to hand down an order. Social workers only have to make arrangements, but it has been given to my profession to destroy the life of the innocent and the helpless.

"Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order. To that question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I answer 'Yes.' It is everyone's responsibility to safeguard and preserve life. A child is a member of the human family and deserves care and concern."

How many physicians, scientists, teachers, pastors, missionaries, statesmen, musicians, businessmen, and notable contributors to society have been murdered in the womb?

At this point, I can hear someone interrupting, "What about cases involving rape or incest?"

While these cases number less than 1% of pregnancies, consider this case

history: a 12-year-old girl was raped and became pregnant. "Get an abortion," you say? Congratulations. You just killed Ethel Waters.

And as Dr. Jefferson said, just where does the acceptance of abortion lead?

If we listen to the former governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm, elderly people who are terminally ill have a "duty to die and get out of the way."

(Source: New York Times)

And does anyone remember Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana?

A little baby was born April 9, 1982, with Down's Syndrome in a Bloomington, Indiana, hospital. The parents refused to allow a doctor to correct a defect in the esophagus that prevented eating because the child was born with Down's. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parents' right to make this decision. Despite many couples on hand willing to adopt the child, adoption offers that came in from all over America, and an appeal pursued to the U.S.

Supreme Court, Baby Doe died of starvation on April 15, 1982.

Add to this blatant disrespect for human life the potential for mandated government-run national health care--complete with cost-related rationing--and one can only imagine how the value of human life will continue to decline in these United States. Plus, if you want to do some personal research that will really send chills up your spine, start investigating the fact that many scientists and researchers are seriously discussing genetic manipulation and genetic engineering. Good grief! Our own government and military are already culpable in grotesque medical experimentation with both civilian and military personnel.

Our own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to using military personnel as human guinea pigs for medical, biological, and mental experimentation under various programs associated with the now-infamous title, MK-ULTRA. CIA officials say the programs have all been scrapped.

Don't you believe it.

In addition, consider the testimony of Dr. Carolyn Gerster, a physician specializing in internal medicine and cardiopulmonary diseases. She obtained her medical degree from the University of Oregon Medical School in Portland.

She spent two years as a medical officer in the US Army.

Dr. Gerster told Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, "I was asked to become a member of the American College of Physicians many years ago. It's any honorary society of internal medicine. I was very proud right up until the day that the society gave the James D. Bruce Award for Medical Research to Dr. Saul Krugman for the following experiment. Dr. Krugman had taken living hepatitis virus MS2 and injected this living virus into 25 retarded children in Willowbrook Home for Retarded in upstate New York. This was defended on the basis that they would probably get the hepatitis virus anyway."

Consider, too, that, contrary to what most people assume, the vast majority of physicians graduating from medical school today no longer take a Hippocratic-type oath--an oath that binds physicians to the following: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary [medical device] to cause an abortion."

As Schaeffer and Koop pointed out in their book, "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" "The Declaration of Geneva (adopted in September 1948 by the General Assembly of the World Medical Organization and modeled closely on the Hippocratic Oath) became used as the graduation oath by more and more medical schools. It includes: 'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.' This concept of the preservation of human life has been the basis of the medical profession and society in general. It is significant that when the University of Pittsburgh changed from the Hippocratic Oath to the Declaration of Geneva in 1971, the students deleted 'from the time of conception' from the clause."

Today, the ageless principles that had guided the medical profession throughout Western Civilization have been expunged from a majority of our physicians' training and practice. And the Roe Supreme Court decision had much to do with this.

What is especially irritating about the whole abortion debate is the way the subject has been used as a political football by those on both the right and the left of the political aisle. While the national Democratic Party proudly touts itself as being "pro-choice," (meaning, pro-murdering unborn babies), it has been the so-called "pro-life" Republican Party that is mostly to blame for legalized abortion being left as the law of the land for nearly 4 decades.

Think of it: the GOP has dominated US Supreme Court appointments for the 37 years since the Roe decision. In fact, the 1973 court that released the Roe decision was a Republican-appointed court by a 6-3 margin. The same GOP-dominated court also rendered the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision reaffirming Roe.

Consider still: the "pro-life" Republican Party controlled the entire federal government from the election of 2000 to the election of 2006: six long years of GOP domination of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the US Supreme Court. And in all that time not one single unborn baby's life was saved. NOT ONE!

And, yet, each year, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) would introduce the Sanctity of Life bill. And each year, the bill would sit in the document room of the Capitol Building and gather dust. What would Rep. Paul's bill do? Two things: (1) It would define unborn babies as persons under the law. (2) Under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the US Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the court. Had the "pro-life" Republican congress passed Dr. Paul's bill, and the "pro-life"President, G. W. Bush, signed it into law, Roe v. Wade would have been effectively overturned.

So, why didn't President Bush trumpet the bill? Where was the Republican leader in the Senate? Where was the Republican Speaker of the House? Where was Orrin Hatch? Where was John McCain? Where was Lindsey Graham? Where was Glenn Beck? Where was Rush Limbaugh? Where was Newt Gingrich? Where was Sean Hannity? Where was the National Right to Life Committee? Where were the tens of thousands of "pro-life" pastors and Christians?

And, yet, these same "pro-life" pastors, church members, and "conservatives"refused to support Congressman Paul for President in 2008, because he was not "conservative" enough. Actually, they opposed him because he opposed the war in Iraq, which means they would rather support a politician who promotes taking America into unconstitutional wars--but who will do nothing to overturn Roe and save the lives of unborn babies--than support a man who demands that the Constitution be followed, and actually had a constitutional plan to overturn Roe and end abortion-on-demand as a national "right." No wonder Jesus noted that unbelievers often have it over believers in the brains department. (See Luke 16:8.)

I remind you that preserving life and liberty is the primary purpose of government (read the Declaration of Independence, for example). At this point, however, I think it is safe to conclude that to pretend there is any hope that Washington politicians (from either party) will do anything to overturn Roe is pure fantasy. At this point, it is up to State legislatures and governors to preserve life in their respective states. Several states are already beginning to do just that.

According to Fox News a few years back, 30 states were poised to pass laws outlawing abortion if and when the US Supreme Court ever reversed its Roe v. Wade decision. What they need to do is stop waiting for the US Supreme Court to reverse itself, and go ahead and stand on their own State authority and autonomy, and outlaw abortion in their states now, as legislators in South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia are already attempting to do.

Legalized abortion is a national holocaust; an affront to our national character; a contradiction of established principles subscribed to from the beginning of Western Civilization; an insult to the principles of our Declaration of Independence; a bane of our national spirit; and a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God. That we have allowed it to continue for 37 years now stands as an indictment against this generation of Americans and bodes ominously for the well-being of our posterity.

Read more >>

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that.  On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.  The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.

House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

Read more >>

Planned Parenthood's abortion quotas exposed

Ex-director: We'd have client goal every month

By Chelsea Schilling

A former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood branch who resigned after she watched an ultrasound-guided abortion told WND the clinic was pushing employees to strive for abortion quotas to boost profits.

"There are definitely client goals," former clinic director Abby Johnson said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

Johnson, 29, said the Bryan, Texas, Planned Parenthood clinic performed surgical abortions every other Saturday, but it began expanding access to abortion to increase earnings.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

I'm not sure what they're scared of. When I first got the restraining order, I was so surprised. My initial response was, what do they think I know? What are they feeling guilty about?

RU-486 chemical abortions kill the lining of the uterus, cutting off oxygen and nutrients, resulting in the death of an unborn baby. Johnson said the chemical abortion costs the same as an early first-trimester abortion: between $505 and $695 for each procedure.

She told WND the clinic was experiencing financial difficulties due to the economic downturn.

"Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations," she said. "Even though they're two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company."

She continued, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."

Now Planned Parenthood has retaliated against Johnson, filing a restraining order against her because the clinic fears she may leak confidential information.

The Brazos Valley Coalition for Life, a pro-life group that recently moved its headquarters several hundred feet away from the clinic, is named on the temporary restraining order as well. The injunction temporarily prevents her from releasing information until after a hearing scheduled for Nov. 10 in the 85th District Court.

Planned Parenthood claimed in court documents that Johnson copied private personnel files and other documents before she quit her position Oct. 6. The abortion provider's lawyers expressed concern that Johnson would disclose client medical records, doctor information and clinic security procedures. The restraining order contends Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by an information leak.

However, Johnson told WND, "I don't have any confidential documents, so I'm not sharing anything because I don't have anything. I have no patient information. I'd never do anything to compromise patient safety or confidentiality. For them to even make that type of statement is so offensive."

Planned Parenthood of Southeast Houston released the following statement Oct. 30: "We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance, it is absolutely necessary."

Johnson said she's not sure why Planned Parenthood is so concerned.

Planned Parenthood is an organization that really runs on fear. If somebody crosses them, they are quick to threaten that person. I've worked for them for a long time and seen them threaten lawsuits multiple times

"Planned Parenthood is an organization that really runs on fear. If somebody crosses them, they are quick to threaten that person. I've worked for them for a long time and seen them threaten lawsuits multiple times," she said. "I'm not sure what they're scared of. When I first got the restraining order, I was so surprised. My initial response was, what do they think I know? What are they feeling guilty about?"

Asked whether she believes Planned Parenthood is concerned that information about its quotas will become public, Johnson responded, "Probably, yeah. I think they're just scared of the whole thing."

She said she believes the injunction is simply a scare tactic meant to keep her quiet.

"Clearly, that kind of backfired," she said.

Johnson explained that she resigned after she saw an ultrasound-guided abortion in which an unborn baby was vacuumed out of a woman's uterus.

"Ultrasound-guided abortions are not typically done in Planned Parenthood abortion centers because they're more time consuming, and that's just not something that centers like that do," she said. "I'd never seen one of those done before. For whatever reason, the physician had called me back to assist with the procedure. When I saw that, that was really when my heart was changed."

Johnson, who was employed at the clinic for eight years and served as a director for two years, said the issue of abortion was "unsettling" for her the whole time she worked with Planned Parenthood. She said she kept "pushing down the guilt" and felt spiritually unsettled.

"There's no religion and there's no spirituality in an abortion clinic. There can't be," she said. "Whatever side you are on, pro-life or pro-choice, it is what it is – and that's taking a human life."

Read more >>

A Quest To Abort Abortion - The Federal Government As Abortionists?

By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.  

Numerous religious and secular organizations are issuing statements, expressing concern and urging action as it becomes evident that the pending proposed health-care legislation contains provisions to fund and to mandate abortion.  In its 1,991 pages - to date, lengthier tomorrow? - there, of course, also are many variations of other, wholly unrelated, trouble.

Among those many protesting entities is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which seldom takes a stand about pending Congressional legislation.  A key paragraph of a letter from that organization reads as follows:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion.   It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported [F]ederal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.  No current bill meets this test . . .”

The following six-question quiz, of unknown origin, is apropos.  Some personal disclosure: I was founding attorney, and for many years General Counsel of, American Life League, Inc; and performed similar legal work for other pro-life or anti-abortion organizations.   The quiz very likely will sway nobody’s view on this delicate subject but it does offer some “might-have-been” history.

Q: A preacher and his wife were poor, with 14 children.  The wife was pregnant. An  abortion? 
A:  It would have been death to John Wesley.

Q: A father had syphilis, the mother tuberculosis.  Of their three living children, a fourth having died, one was blind, one deaf, one with tuberculosis.  Abortion?  
A:  Death to Ludwig van Beethoven.

Q: A baby was born crippled and a dwarf.  Abortion? 
A:  Death to Alexander Pope.

Q: A White man raped and impregnated a young Black girl.  Abortion? 
A:  Death to Ethel Waters, the Gospel singer.

Q: A poor teenage girl was unmarried and pregnant.  Her father, a soldier, disowned mother and child. 
A:  Death to Father Joseph Mohr, lyricist and co-composer of Silent Night, Holy Night.

Q: An   unmarried   teenage girl   was   pregnant. According to Christian Doctrine her fiancé was not the father.  
A:  The Lord Jesus Christ.

As of today public opposition to sweeping and unprecedented Federal health-care legislation is mounting, affirmative votes are dwindling.  Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT, caucusing with the Democrats) has invoked what usually is termed the First Rule of Medical Practice in opposing  the  1,991-page  bill  or  any  version  of  it:  “First,  do  no  harm.”  Inside and outside Capitol Hill the prevailing prediction is there will be no bill in the 111th Congress, 1st Session, probably in the entire 111th Congress. 

Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.

Read more >>

Sanctity of Criminals' Lives

By Thomas E. Brewton

Some groups like the ACLU, who advocate abolition of the death penalty for murder or rape, enthusiastically endorse murder by abortion.

Many Christians and religious Jews, along with secular liberal-progresssives, sincerely oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers or rapists.  They are firmly persuaded that the God-given miracle of life is too precious to leave in the hands of fallible human jurors and judges.

Almost all people agree that murder, taking matters into one’s own hands without the sanction of civil justice, is forbidden.  Indeed, that view is one of the oldest imbedded in society’s laws.  Those same laws of society, from time immemorial, also dictated executing murderers and rapists, provided that they were brought before a lawfully constituted body and convicted by requisite evidence.  Justice was fitting the penalty to the crime. 

Justice was viewed from the standpoint of the whole of society, not solely from the viewpoint of the accused.  Acts of rape, mutilation, or murder were crimes against the order of society, as well as against the specific victims.

Ancient law codes, from the Ten Commandments to Hammurabi’s law, were based upon an explicit reference to the gods recognized as the protectors of that society.  Thus executing murderers and rapists, as well as acts of murder or rape, inevitably raise moral questions.  Today those questions tend to be confined to the criminal who commits such acts.  Little thought is given to the morality of protecting society from such people, as well as the rights of victims and their families.  Little thought is given to the degrading effect upon society, the contempt for law and justice, engendered by limiting punishment of murderers and rapists to prison confinement, from which they all too often escape or are paroled.  Little thought is given to the frequency with which escapees or parolees murder, mutilate, and rape new victims.

For more details regarding that aspect of the death penalty, see Lester Jackson’s essay on the TCS Daily website.

Many Christians and religious Jews who oppose the death penalty also oppose abortion.  But many secular liberal-progressives oppose the death penalty while advocating an absolute and unilateral right of a woman to murder her baby via abortion.  Why, it’s fair to ask , are the lives of ruthless criminals so much more important than the lives of innocent unborn or just-born babies?

Opposition of the ACLU and other liberal-progressives to the death penalty and their support for abortion pivot off their support for civil rights.  Because a disproportionate number of murders, mutilations, and rapes are committed by blacks and other minorities, the ACLU says that the death penalty is itself discrimination against those minorities and an infringement of civil rights.  Because the ACLU, and liberal-progressives generally, reject Judeo-Christian morality as a foundation of social order, they have no compunction about elevating feminist ideology over unborn babies’ right to life.

The underlying philosophical support for such doctrine is socialism’s concept of social justice.  The first prominent statement of that doctrine was the work of French Revolutionary philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the middle 1700s.  Rousseau asserted that, in the original state of nature, there was plenty of everything for everybody and that people were benevolent, resorting to neither aggression and crime, nor war. 

In Rousseau’s imagination (he admitted that he had no historical or other evidence to support it), this idyllic perfection, the secular-liberal-progressive version of the Garden of Eden, was ended by the advent of private property rights and the structuring of societies to protect those property rights.  Once someone declared a piece of ground to be his property and asserted a right to prevent its use by others, avarice, greed, aggression, crime, and war were unleashed upon a formerly peaceful and benevolent humanity.

Opposition to the death penalty rests in part upon Rousseau’s imagined benevolence of people in the original state of nature.  If crime is the product of ownership of private property, then humanity can be returned to its natural benevolence by redistribution of property under a socialist regime.  Murderers and rapists can be rehabilitated through the ministrations of secular social scientists, because humans are all good when not corrupted by a social and political structure that protects property rights.

This doctrine is unsupported by historical experience, indeed totally repudiated by socialist experiment, from Revolutionary France, to the Soviet Union, Hitler’s National Socialism, and Mao’s Red China.  But it was the genesis of the ACLU, which was organized during the First World War to support socialists’ and anarchists’ efforts to sabotage America’s preparations for entry into the European conflict. 

The ACLU, ever since, has adopted as its official purpose supporting any effort to degrade the Judeo-Christian moral ethos upon which the United States was founded.

For the ACLU and its liberal-progressive supporters, at least, opposition to the death penalty is, at bottom, just one more way to corrode the moral foundations of constitutional government in the United States, a constitutional government founded upon the essentiality of private property rights.  It is precisely this same objective that governs ACLU advocacy of abortion.

Read more >>

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Leader Resigns After Watching Ultrasound of Abortion Procedure

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it.”

Read more >>

Company's anti-aging products built on cells harvested from aborted baby

Confirmed: Skin cream contains fetal proteins

By Drew Zahn

A pro-life organization is blasting a Switzerland-based cosmetics manufacturer whose website openly admits some of its products were developed from the tissues of an aborted baby.

Children of God for Life is a non-profit organization focused on the bioethics of embryonic tissue use in medicine and manufacturing. One of its current campaigns includes petitioning pharmaceutical companies to produce safe, effective alternatives to vaccines derived or cultivated from aborted fetal tissue.

But the organization's attention has now turned Neocutis, a company with offices in San Francisco which has developed a line of anti-aging products that include an ingredient the company has trademarked as Processed Skin Cell Protein, or PSP, developed from skin cells harvested from an abortion.

"It is absolutely deplorable that Neocutis would resort to exploiting the remains of a deliberately slaughtered baby for nothing other than pure vanity and financial gain," said Debi Vinnedge, executive director of Children of God for Life, in a statement. "There is simply no moral justification for this."

The website for Neocutis, which is privately held with estimated annual sales of in excess of $2 million, explains that its research began years ago, when scientists discovered fetal skin's unusual ability to heal without scarring. Scientists at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland, then created a process to extract proteins from fetal cells in the attempt to obtain an optimal, naturally balanced mixture of nutrients.

The scientists then infused those nutrients into a line of cosmeceutical anti-aging products: Neocutis skin cream, Journée day cream, Lumière eye cream and Bio-Gel bio-restorative hydrogel – products Vinnedge is advising women to throw in the garbage before contacting Neocutis to voice their concerns.

"There is absolutely no reason to use aborted babies for such selfish motives," Vinnedge said. "It is anti-life, anti-woman and counter-productive, as Neocutis is about to find out!"

Children of God for Life boasts that it has been a watchdog on pharmaceutical companies using aborted fetal cell lines in medical products and has received thousands of inquiries from the public on the use of aborted fetal material in cosmetics. But this is the first time, the organization says, that any company was bold enough to put the information right on its own website and in product literature.

In fact, the Neocutis website openly explains the history of its PSP ingredient:

"A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination," the website states, "and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments. Originally established for wound healing and burn treatments, today this same cell bank also provides a lasting supply of cells for producing Neocutis' proprietary skin care ingredient Processed Skin Cell Proteins."

The company adds, "No additional fetal biopsies will ever be required."

But Children of God for Life finds little consolation in the company's statement.

"You note in your literature that 'no further fetal biopsies will be needed,' as though the life of the one child you have exploited has no value," wrote the organization in a letter to Neocutis' CEO. "It is deplorable that you would attempt to mollify the public and whitewash your badly tarnished image so thoughtlessly."

Vinnedge also told WND that companies aren't required to disclose their research history to the public, so there may be facts conveniently omitted from the Neocutis story.

"What we don't know is how many other fetuses were involved before they perfected that one cell line," she surmised. "There's a possibility there were more."

WND contacted Neocutis repeatedly for comment, but phone messages were not returned. A Businessweek web report says the company was founded in 2003 and its directors were identified as Frederic-Edouard Koehn, Patrick Hohlfeld, Diego Braguglia and Jennifer Pearson.

Children of God for Life, however, is actively calling for a boycott of all Neocutis products, beginning a campaign to contact the company's investors and even offering free publicity to companies that will certify in writing their products are free from ingredients derived from aborted babies.

"We know there are companies using moral sources for collagen and skin proteins," Vinnedge said. "We intend to publicly promote these other cosmetic companies competing with Neocutis that are willing to step forward and contact us."

Read more >>

Police 'arrest' Jesus image

Protesters say picture with waving middle fingers should have been targeted

A new video posted on YouTube reveals how police in Rockford, Ill., "arrested" a drawing of Jesus used by a pro-life protester at an abortion business – even though a different drawing purporting to be of Jesus waving both middle fingers at the pro-lifers was left untouched.

The video was posted by an organization called the Rockford Pro-life Initiative:

The video explains how the pro-life organization protests the taking of unborns' lives through "prayer, fasting, education and personal sacrifice."

"We come here to pray and offer assistance and options to women about to end the life of their child," the video narrator says of the actions at the site of the Northern Illinois Womens Center.

The video shows a protester shouting to someone heading into the abortion business, "Please don't do this today. Please love your baby."

Then it focuses on a window of the abortion business to reveal a drawing of Jesus with fists in the front of the picture, with both middle fingers extended.

The video notes the image violates city rules against the offensive use of images, an issue raised to the city's legal department by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. He wrote to city officials about the issue of "the obscene portrayal of Jesus with his middle finger extended at Christians."

"When we last exchanged letters, I thought that this specific issue was resolved. But now I have learned that there is a new depiction, this time with Jesus giving the finger with both hands. Is this true? And if so, what can be done about it? My central concern is to shield local Catholics from having their religious sensibilities assaulted, and to stop this conflict from escalating," he wrote to city officials, but he did not obtain a response.

However, the video reveals that only days ago, when a protester briefly put down a drawing of Jesus he had been carrying, police approached him almost immediately, and within a short time, actually "arrested" the image, placing it in the back seat of a police cruiser.

Video: Signs of Evil

Video: Lisa's Baby Died Here/SILENT NO MORE

Read more >>

Principal to boy: Strip off 'insulting' pro-life shirt

Student wears 'Abortion is not health care' slogan to Obama school speech

By Chelsea Schilling

A Christian middle-school student is suing his school district after a principal ordered him to remove a T-shirt bearing the message "Abortion is not health care" on the day of President Obama's speech to schoolchildren.

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court against the West Shore School District in Lewisberry, Pa., Oct. 5 on behalf of a male, Christian middle-school student identified as E.B.

The boy's parents, identified as the Boyers, said they were concerned about the president's speech and the national health-care debate, including reported funding of abortion within proposed legislation.

"[T]he Boyers, like many others, felt that President Obama was bypassing them and speaking directly to their children without their permission," the complaint states. "… Like many others, the Boyers struggled with whether they should send their children to school on that day. E.B. attended school and decided to voice his religious viewpoint as it relates to the issue of abortion."

The boy wore the T-shirt to his classes at Crossroads Middle School and said he received no complaints until his fifth-period teacher ordered him to go to the principal's office to determine whether the shirt was "appropriate."

E.B. claims he was immediately told to remove his shirt "because it might insult somebody."

ADF is challenging the following policies enforced by Crossroads Middle School and the West Shore School District:

• "'Policy 220: Student Expression,' prohibits speech which 'seeks[s] to establish the supremacy of a particular religious denomination, sect, or point of view' and that which contain[s] material otherwise deemed harmful to impressionable students.'"

• "'Policy 221: Dress and Grooming' prohibits 'clothing which creates a hostile educational environment or evidences discriminatory bias or animus' or displays 'inappropriate words.'"

"These are highly unconstitutional policies that demonstrate that there's a widespread need for schools to be educated about the First Amendment," ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman said in a statement. "Under the current wording, a student could actually be prevented from saying that his beliefs are true. The policies also allow officials unrestricted discretion in determining what speech violates the policies. In this case, they clearly singled out this student's pro-life speech and illegitimately censored it."

According to the lawsuit, the school's "draconian censorship of plaintiff's religious and political speech, and the policies on which that censorship was based, violate First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

The complaint states that E.B. wishes to wear T-shirts expressing his Christian faith and political views because he "desires to reach out to his peers and to offer them advice, assistance, and education" and to "discuss relevant issues facing students at school, including faith and religion, personal responsibility, sexual abstinence, keeping children in the event of pregnancy, just to name a few."

ADF's lawsuit argues, "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate."

"Pro-life students shouldn't be censored for their views," Cortman said. "It's clearly unconstitutional for school officials to prohibit a student's message on the grounds that someone might not like it. The school routinely allows students to wear a wide variety of messages on their shirts without any concerns, but this student has been singled out even though his shirt caused no disruption and is clearly within the bounds of constitutionally guaranteed free speech."

Read more >>

Money and Celebrity the New Substitute for Justice in America

By Michael Bresciani

Is leftism rising to the defense of evil even as it sinks to the depths of hell? Perhaps this question would have made a better title for this article but why scare readers away with what may only be construed as preachers pious platitudes.

America is busy with economic problems, the war in Afghanistan and healthcare issues, whose got time for questions of morality or theological issues? Apparently no one! While all the current issues are worthy of our attention isn’t it odd that we tend to dismiss the very issue that we ultimately ignore at the price of our own peril?

The CBS News Crimesider reported on October 5, 2009 that Roman Polanski the accused child rapist agreed to pay to make it go away. “15 years after he fled the United States, film director — and child rapist — Roman Polanski agreed to pay his sexual assault victim $500,000 to settle a lawsuit, according to court documents.”

Whether offered by the accused or extracted by civil proceedings we may be getting all too accustomed to the idea that money is a good substitute for justice. We know what O.J. had to pay and the huge sums Michael Jackson coughed up are now public record but do we actually accept this as reasonable payment for behavior or crimes that the common man would be asked to pay for with his own skin?

Now it is not just money but the weight of celebrity that is being leveraged to get the courts to stop the usual slow grinding of the wheels of justice. Celebrities who have weighed in for Polanski are the same ones who would have little mercy if the accused were a protestant minister, a catholic priest or a conservative senator or congressmen. Hollywood and leftism go hand in hand as in ‘how could they get away with what they have shown us lately from the land of filmdom if they weren’t liberals?’ Apples don’t grow on the Sycamore.

All liberals don’t agree with the few Hollywood celebs that have stood up for Polanski and as the backlash grows against those who have, it is not that all liberals speak for Hollywood but rather can we afford to forget that it is more often than not that Hollywood speaks for the liberals. Some liberals are chiming in against giving Polanski a pass but is it because they actually have a conscience or is it the close proximity of the 2010 elections? You decide.

So what is the ‘issue we ignore at our own peril?’ What is it that we tend to label as ‘preachers pious platitudes?’ In fact it is that reminder in both scripture and history that when a nation begins to disregard the precious life of its own offspring it is in the throws and last gasps of its very existence.

If 50 million abortions weren’t enough, as if trafficking in children weren’t enough, as if the disappearance of 50,000 children a year in America weren’t enough, as if exposing kindergarteners to the aspects of the gay life weren’t enough, will we now add the lessening of the punishment to child rapists to the pot? Have we crossed the line from just flirting with God’s judgment to outright asking for it? According to scripture we have.

Prior to ancient Israel’s final fall which resulted in their being banished to all of the nations to be endlessly persecuted and hated (Diaspora) they literally went in circles. They would start with complete adherence to God’s laws and statutes and in time would submit to the religions, cultures and practices of the surrounding nations until they were chastised  (usually by warfare, pestilence, diseases and captivity) when they had enough they, would cry out to God again. He would send those prophets, judges and rulers that would deliver them. But they would only start around again in the vicious cycle.

Some things appeared in their national behavior each and every time they fell to the low end of the cycle. They always succumbed to the same sins but somehow managed to forget their past as a generation or two passed into history. The acceptance of sodomy, idolatry, licentiousness and child abuse were always at the heart of their fall.

Their child abuse went as far as it could go when coupled with aligning themselves to the idolatries of the surrounding nations. They sunk so far as to offer their children to be burned in the fires lit to honor the ancient idols of the god Moloch. While they sought the favor of idols made of wood and stone, the living God who bore them from the womb grew disgusted.

“Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, like David his father: For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim. Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel. (2 Chr 28: 1-3)

The King Ahaz did it and the people joined him in the burning of their own children. But Israel still managed to do it again until they were finally kicked out of their homeland for a period of nearly 2,500 years and would not become a free and independent nation again until 1948.

Among the many sins of mankind child abuse stands in a class by itself. In the scriptures it marks the final phase of a rift between God and any particular nation. Is America approaching this critical point with its abortions, child abductions and abuse and the coddling of child rapists?

We can discuss the stimulus package and the healthcare bill until we are unable to speak but to ignore these warnings of scripture will surely be our worst nightmare. This is my pious platitude of which I am not the least bit ashamed.

Pondering the use of ‘Is leftism rising to the defense of evil even as it sinks to the depths of hell’ as the alternate title for this piece takes on a whole new meaning when it is known that the very place where the Israelites offered their children to be burned was later referred to as hell by Jesus Christ. In fact it is the term used to this day.

The place where the children were offered, a vast open area to the south of Jerusalem where refuse was dumped and where fires and worms were always festering became known as Gehenna. Christ made allusions to this former place of severe child abuse when he warned of a place of eternal torment now commonly known only as hell.

Can we afford to ignore the lives of our own offspring and resort to the perverting of justice whether in the acceptance of Roe v. Wade or the subverting of justice for child rapists? Are we willing to gamble the future of this great nation against the idea that we can? God help us to see that this is a fool’s gamble because even to win would be losing.

http://www.americanprophet.org is the place for news, articles, movie and book reviews and other insights for life. Rev Bresciani is a columnist for online and print publications and has over three million readers and counting.

Keywords:

CBS,healthcare,Afghanistan,Polanski,Roman Polanski,Michael Jackson,O.J.,Ahaz,Israel,child,abuse,rapist,justice,roe v. wade,moloch,Hinnom,hell,worms,fires,baalim,nightmares,offspring,diaspora,trafficking,kindegarteners,Hollywood,celebrities

Read more >>

Teaching what to 9-year-olds?

By Phyllis Schafly

Would you belong and pay dues to a foreign organization that is anti-morality and anti-marriage? If not, why do we allow the United States to use our taxpayers' money to pay dues for membership in UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)?

One of President Ronald Reagan's many excellent decisions was his 1984 termination of U.S. membership in this United Nations affiliate because it was corrupt, anti-Western and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. We enjoyed a nearly 20-year splendid absence from UNESCO's expensive gatherings in Paris of foreign bureaucrats promoting globalist mischief.

President George W. Bush put us back in UNESCO in 2003 as part of his steady retreat from Reaganism and devotion to an undefined new world order. President Obama hasn't yet said anything about UNESCO, but as a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," we can assume he is pro-UNESCO.

Riding on the word "educational" in its name, UNESCO has adopted the pretense that it is in charge of prescribing curriculum for schoolchildren all over the world. UNESCO has even been trying to position itself to influence U.S. school curriculum.

In 2004 in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corp. to develop a "master curriculum (syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. This agreement states that the syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."

UNESCO's director general boasted that one of the goals is to foster "worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values." This fall, UNESCO has been busy writing guidelines for the teaching of sex education, supposedly in order to slow the spread of HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

In these guidelines, UNESCO tells teachers in all countries to present abstinence until marriage as "only one of a range of choices available to young people" to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Other choices would surely be more fun.

The working draft of the guidelines calls for children ages 5 to 8 to be taught in school about masturbation (age 5 means starting in kindergarten). Children 5 to 8 years old would also be taught about same-sex couples and tolerance of different sexual orientations.

Schoolchildren ages 9 to 15 are to be given more detailed discussions about masturbation. New topics on the list for 9-year-olds include orgasm and abortion.

It's no surprise that the guidelines feature enthusiastic support of abortion. UNESCO's guidelines assert that teachers should discuss "advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe" abortion for students starting at age 12.

According to UNESCO, students should be taught that "legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe." Teachers should also discuss "emergency contraception" and how to get "access to safe abortion and post-abortion care."

After the news broke about what was actually in the guidelines, one of the key agencies that funded UNESCO's guidelines, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), asked that its name be removed. It's unclear whether UNFPA is critical of the guidelines, or of their explicit wording, or merely of the bad publicity generated by release of the working draft.

UNFPA's announced goal is "universal access to reproductive health services by 2015." UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programs "to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV-AIDS."

The week after UNFPA pulled its name from the UNESCO guidelines, UNFPA held a conference in Berlin to train 400 activists to advocate for abortion around the world. At the end of the conference, UNFPA issued a statement urging all nations to provide taxpayer-financed abortions, to "eliminate parental ... and age restrictions" for young people to access "the full range of sexual and reproductive health information and services," and to increase funds for nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) advocating abortion and other "reproductive health-care services."

Public reaction to the UNESCO sex-ed guidelines caused UNESCO to make several changes before presenting them at the UNESCO meeting in Birmingham, England, in September. However, there was no apology for the explicitness of the sex-ed curriculum – UNESCO asserted that its guidelines are "evidence-informed and rights-based."

Criticism was not universal. Time magazine went on the attack against what it called "the knee-jerk outrage of conservative pundits" and reminded Time's readers that the UNESCO guidelines will "undergo sober and thoughtful examination in more open-minded places ... like Ethiopia."

Read more >>

Abortion Challenge to the Left: Why do you feel it's ok to kill our children via abortion?

Please tell me why.

Alain

I'm a conservative. There are many facets to this viewpoint, just as there are many to someone who claims to be a liberal.

Today, I want to challenge the liberal viewpoint that a woman has the "RIGHT" to terminate an unborn life that she has helped create.

I have always heard liberals and feminists loudly tout that because it is her body, she has the right to do whatever she wants with it, and the unborn life that is growing inside her does not matter in any way, shape or form.

If she decides that having a child, for whatever reason, is not good for her, she then has the right to extinguish that small life.

Anyone who claims it is not "a life" is refusing to admit the scientific facts, and the truth, for the sake of their own convenience, and possibly because of a guilty conscience.

Even the "doctors" who do the terrible deed admit freely that they are killing a child.

Former abortionist, Anthony Levatino, M.D., says, "I want the general public to know that the doctors know that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue . . ." And former abortionist, McArthur Hill, M.D., said, "I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and I have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful vacuum machine."

People on the Left will stand up and scream bloody murder if someone smashes an egg in the nest of a bird on the protected animal list -- but a human child in the equivalent stage of development has zero value to them. Go figure.

So here is my question and challenge to all of you liberals.

If it 's all a matter of "choice" for a woman, why can a woman not choose to be responsible for her own actions?

Is a woman not capable of controlling herself? Is a woman so weak that she cannot abstain from taking actions that can result in causing a new life to be created?

Oh, I know it feels great! The act of procreation is immensely pleasurable, but it takes a conscious choice to participate in the act.

I hear taking large amounts of certain types of narcotics can tickle the pleasure zone so badly that you think you are in heaven, but the act of taking drugs comes with consequences.

Oooohhhh, that dreaded word, consequence.

For every action there is a reaction. Cause and effect. Absolutely scary concepts to the "do it because it feels good" crowd who want to live life like there were NO consequences for any action they deem pleasurable.

Please write in, post some comments liberal Americans. Explain to me why it is ok for a woman to end the life of a child brought into existence by her actions.

What, a man is involved as well? So true, but nature has decreed that it is the woman who will carry a child. This is a fact that those of you on the left who support the homosexual movement just hate to admit, but facts are facts - men and women are different.

If a man fathers a child, society should make him take care of his responsibilities toward this new life he helped create. I agree on this whole heartedly.

Being a good father who provides for and raises his children is the ultimate example of manhood.

What about rape and incest, you ask? Are you going to argue that a woman should be able to kill an innocent child because of the crime of the father?

First, let's get the facts straight -- less than one percent of all abortions performed in America are for rape or incest.

In these cases, the rapist is the criminal, not the newly conceived child. Killing the child of a woman who has been impregnated by rape is not the answer. The loving response is to love them both: both mother and child. The terrible crime of the father should not be cause for a death sentence for the child.

As for the man, he's a vicious criminal and he should be prosecuted for his crime. In fact I favor laws requiring castration of repeat offenders (just my personal opinion).

So tell me liberal America: What is "so compelling" -- reason why must we keep these horrendous acts of abortion legal? Shouldn't our society care for all our children, our future generation, those in the womb and those already born?

America's founding document states that all have the Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life.

Liberty.

Pursuit of Happiness.

Please click our comment button and explain why women cannot accept responsibility in their lives, why they do not have the strength or ability to control themselves, why we are not generous enough to help support women and children in need.

Why are men and women not able to abstain from sexual relations until such a time as they desire a child, or accept responsibility for the life they have helped create?

Please tell me why.

(J.T. Finn and Frank York contributed to this article.)

Read more >>

Response to Jonathan M on why I am against abortion

Some people really just dont get it.

Response to Jonathan M on why I am against abortion

Subject: I don't fully understand your ideas, could you assist me please?

Before I ask my question I wish to say beforehand, I'm not asking this out of spite or any sort of hateful thoughts. I'm just curious about your stance on abortion, why are you so set in your ways against it when abortion can both control human population (and we are in a population crisis) and has the purposefully hidden consenquinse of lowering crime. but ill not get into that argument, for it isn't proper conversation.

Please forgive my horrable writing, and please don't think me a fool for asking. Maybe we can have a civil discusion as time progresses, but for now ill say fare well and thank you for replying.

Jonathan Mxxxxxx

Dear Jonathan,

Why am I so against abortion? I am against it because it is murder of an innocent human life, plain and simple.

As for controlling the population and crime, you sound pretty selfish if you can present an argument for destroying the weakest of the human race to better the lives of the others, i.e., yourself.

We could just as easily control population and crime by killing adults, I mean if you follow this argument why place limitations?

Why not kill off all the old people as well. After all they do not produce for society but take from it.

We could also kill the ill and infirm since they are a constant drain on our resources.

We could kill the people with lower IQ's, I mean only the intelligent should benefit from living right?

Oh, then we must also most definitely kill those who look different or think different. I mean, where would we be if people were not like you, or disagreed with you, and these people were allowed to keep on breathing.

Where do you draw the line??

Once the value of life is removed, the only limitations are those placed by those in control.

A man named Hitler went this route. His reasoning was to control what he saw as overpopulation by those who were detrimental to his view of society.

As for discussion, there is none. I am absolute in my values of innocent life, and there is no argument you or anyone else out there will ever be able to bring to me that will sway my opinion on this.

Especially since almost every single person out there who supports the so-called “Choice” of a woman to kill their children are some of the most self-centered selfish people in our day and age.

They believe in the “do it if it feels good and go on living without any consequence” mentality.

I believe in moral absolutes. Some things are unbending, unchanging. This does not matter whether you agree or disagree it is just simple fact.

Some times there is NO SHADE of GREY, just simple black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. This is one of those things.

Read more >>

Support for Abortion Rights Declines Under Obama

In the largest shift in sentiment since pollsters began asking about the topic in 1995, support for abortion rights dropped from 54 to 47 percent in one year.

Popular support for abortion rights has dropped seven points in the past year due in part to the election of a pro-choice Democratic president, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said Thursday.

In the largest shift in sentiment since pollsters began asking about the topic in 1995, support dropped from 54 to 47 percent in one year. Opposition rose from 40 to 44 percent and the percentage of undecided rose from 6 to 9 percent.

"It's pretty unusual," senior Pew researcher Greg Smith said of the change in public attitudes about abortion rights. "In 2007 and 2008, supporters of abortion clearly outnumbered opponents by a 14-point margin. Now the margin is 3 percent. Basically, they are evenly divided."

Pew's findings square with a similar Gallup Values and Beliefs survey in May that showed more Americans consider themselves to be pro-life (51 percent) than pro-choice (42 percent).

They also square with a Pew survey released in May showing an even larger drop of 8 percentage points - 54 to 46 percent since August 2008 - of abortion rights advocates. The biggest drops in support were among white mainline Protestants and men. Approval among both groups fell by 10 percent.

Although opponents have yet to actually outnumber supporters of abortion rights, the balance of opinion has shifted dramatically across the culture and multiple religious groups ranging from Catholics to Jews, Mr. Smith said.

And the idea of a "common ground" on abortion, a key tenet of the Obama administration, is apparently not resonating with either major political parties or the religiously affiliated and non-affiliated. The most disenchanted with the idea are white evangelical Protestants, whose support for a middle ground dropped 21 percentage points (from 61 percent to 40 percent) since 2006. The one exception is Roman Catholics, whose support for common ground rose 4 points, from 63 to 67 percent.

Pew figures showed that a large number of liberals no longer consider abortion a key issue, whereas conservatives are increasingly more entrenched in their opposition to the nation's annual total of 1.2 million abortions. Fifteen percent of all liberals consider abortion an important issue today, compared with 28 percent in 2005, the survey said.

The survey of 4,013 adults, conducted in August, is one of the first indicators of public sentiment on the Obama administration's first nine months. It has a margin of error of 2 percent.

Pew researchers pinpointed the this past spring as the turning point of public perceptions of the issue.

"There is no one answer that explains the shift," Mr. Smith said. "The election of a Democratic pro-choice president could be a contributing factor."

Although survey results showed a drop in approval of legalized abortion, it also showcased a large swatch of the public that wishes the matter would be laid to rest.

In a question about President Obama's handling of the issue, 42 percent said they didn't know his stance on abortion, "which is consistent with the decline of the importance of this issue for a lot of people," Mr. Smith said.

Of the remainder, 29 percent said the president is handling the issue "about right," 19 percent worry he is supporting abortion too much, and 4 percent say he is not doing enough.

Pew found that support for abortion rights has dropped among Catholics of all stripes, with the biggest decline - 10 points - among white Catholics who attend Mass weekly.

All religious groups on the survey showed sizable drops in abortion rights support. Double-digit drops included Jews (10 percent), white mainline Protestants (10 percent) and white evangelicals who sporadically attend church (12 percent).

Read more >>