Once again this week I’m postponing the End of the Age review of the Olivet Discourse, so I can share what’s been happening on my blog recently.  The good Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise, I’ll return to it next week.

In 1985, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, before the fall of the Berlin wall,  Sting released a cold-war protest song titled “Russians,” where he pronounced that because of  “Oppenheimer’s deadly toy” there’s no such thing as a “winnable war.”  Here’s a video if you want to listen.

Atomic bombing of Nagasaki 8/9/45

It has a haunting melody based on the Lieutenant Kijé Suite by Russian composer Sergei Prokofiev, and the repeating refrain goes this way:

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me, and you
Is if the Russians love their children too

Having been raised during the Vietnam War and the Cold War, I know that this song seriously challenged the popular American rhetoric that those nasty Commies were somehow less than human.

It parallels the current American rhetoric leading up to our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in that Muslims are also less than human.  While I don’t support Islam or its goals, neither do I support the attitude displayed by General Tommy Franks when asked about those killed during the Iraq invasion:  “You know we don’t do body counts.”  Or phrased another way, as evidenced by the recent Wikileak video, any dead Muslim is a good Muslim.

1 am update: I have just read a letter written by two soldiers who were in Iraq, to the Iraqi people.  This paragraph jumped out at me:

Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.

Apparently, I am not alone in this.

My recent blog traffic, I believe, refutes these attitudes, and I state categorically that the Russians – and the Iraqis and the Afghans and people all over the world – do love their children, and I’ll tell you why.

Last November, I did a post that included photos of aborted babies.  Recently, for whatever reasons Google uses, one of those photos is now first in line when you search their images for “aborted fetus.”  This has increased my blog traffic dramatically, as you can see by this chart.

I have always gotten a little traffic from other countries, but nothing like this. In fact, here’s a list of the countries where people have searched out this image in the past week or so.

* Australia
* Austria
* Bosnia
* Brazil
* Canada
* Chile
* China
* Croatia
* Germany
* Guatemala
* Guayana
* Herzegovina
* Iceland
* India
* Indonesia
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Japan
* Malaysia
* Mexico
* Netherlands
* Netherlands Antilles
* New Zealand
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Philippines
* Portugal
* Romania
* Slovenia
* Spain
* Taiwan
* Turkey
* United Arab Emirates
* United Kingdom
* United States

This has caused me to wonder why all these people from all these very different cultures were seeking out photos of dead babies.  Was a woman in New Zealand mourning a baby she aborted? Did a Muslim from Turkey want to see evidence of what America is exporting? Was one of the people from China a woman who was forced to abort a second child by the government?

The only common thread I could find among all these different people is the same one that Sting sang about:  “We share the same biology.”  Regardless of what we have been taught, regardless of the religion or politics of our country, regardless of how loudly we may proclaim our “right to choose,” instinctively we all know that a fetus is a precious child.  Paul speaks of this knowledge in his letter to the Romans:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, (Romans 2:14-15)

My prayer is that all those who look at these photos while contemplating an abortion will recognize and protect the life that grows inside them.

My prayer is that all those who have already had an abortion will allow their conscience to acknowledge their guilt and turn to the only one who can remove that guilt, Jesus Christ.

My prayer is that abortion around the world will become a thing of the past.  What’s written on your heart?

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)

But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices, And served their idols, Which became a snare to them. They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood. (Psalms 106:35-38)

Congressman Bart Stupak, who has been leading a coalition of pro-life Democrats against the pro-abortion Senate health care bill over its abortion funding, announced today he has reached an agreement with the White House for President Barack Obama to issue an executive order nullifying it. The executive order would reportedly make it so the Stupak amendment, which stopped abortion funding and promotion in the House version, would apply to the final law.

“I’m pleased to announce that we have an agreement — with the help of the president and the Speaker — we were able to come up with an agreement to protect the sanctity of life in health care reform,” Stupak said.

“Today the president announced he will be signing,” the executive order to “keep the principle” against funding of abortion.

Setting aside the ridiculous shenanigans that are being used to change a major portion of our economy without actually voting on it, let’s look at this.  The President, who thinks killing babies is the right of every woman, and signed an executive order to fund overseas abortions right after he took office, has said he’ll sign another executive order to prevent that in the United States, if only Stupak and company will give him the rest of Obamacare.

Isn’t this a lot like the guy who says he’ll marry you, if only you’ll sleep with him now?

But maybe I’m selling Obama short.  Maybe he really will sign an executive order.  Maybe it really will prevent direct federal funding of abortions. And maybe no other executive order will ever change that.

yeah, right …

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

UPDATE:

Congressman Stupak called NRO to clarify his comments. In recent conversations, he says that some Democratic members, not Democratic leaders, have been citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years. “I did not mean to infer that the leaders are using financial arguments to deny my amendment,” he says.

So much for taking a stand.  About all the credit I’ll give Bart Stupak is that he’s generated some discussion about abortion funding, even if he’s just doing it to make himself feel better – or to garner some name-recognition.  In the final analysis, he knows and we know that Obamacare will pay for abortion.

So what’s new?

“It’s against the law to fund abortions,” you say.

But that doesn’t stop your tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood [PP], the country’s largest abortion business.  Even though PP will proclaim that tax dollars are not used for abortions (yeah, right),  local, state, and federal grants and contracts have increased steadily for the past ten years or more.  According to Planned Parenthood’s last annual report, in 2007 they received $350 million from the government.  If you extend that out ten years, it comes to $3 billion more than the Stupak amendment purportedly will cost.

If you compare the tax dollars to the number of abortions PP has done, as LifeNews.Com has done in this handy-dandy chart [click chart to enlarge], you’ll find that just as this non-profit’s government funding has increased, so has the number of babies they murder each year.  In 2007?  They killed 305,310 babies with your money.

So as much as I abhor abortion, excuse me for not getting overly excited about the Stupak amendment.  Whether it’s openly in Obamacare or hidden in grants and contracts, our tax dollars kill babies – piles and piles of babies.

What price, Ben Nelson? up to $100 million for permanent and full federal aid for Nebraska’s expanded Medicaid population

What price, Mary Landrieu? $100 million – $300 million in additional federal aid for Louisiana’s Medicaid population

What price, Bernie Sanders? a share of $1.2 billion for Vermont and Massachusetts Medicaid; $10 – $14 billion for community health centers in Vermont

And the list goes on, ad nauseam. If future federal dollars will be worth more than toilet paper, then maybe they’ve done a service for their welfare states.  Personally, I think the $12+ trillion deficit is coming close to the tipping point where China will no longer prop up our fiat money.

I’m not surprised by the lack of morals or integrity in Washington, but I am thoroughly repulsed.  And I’m slack jawed that a spokesman for Harry Reid openly defends this bribery and blackmail,  declaring that, “This is just part of the normal legislative process.”

Perhaps it’s “normal” in Washington, but it’s not normal for a Christian.  Even Judas felt remorse.

Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:3-5)

We’ve received several complaints from our students that they felt harassed, that they felt that their safety has come into question and that they felt personally attacked.

So said McGill University student society president Ivan Neilson in Montreal.  The problem?  That annoying student pro-life club.  Some students “claimed that Choose Life had disseminated false health information (the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link that is denied by Health Canada) and exposed students to graphic images associated with abortion and fetal life.”  They lodged official complaints and the club has been suspended from campus.

In addition, last month some protesters (the same ones?) had drowned out a pro-life presentation entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust,” effectively shutting it down.  Said one student:

… as a human being, but also as a Jew, I would say that this kind of comparison is not acceptable.  By this ridiculous claim of trying to ‘humanize’ foetuses in order to further their cause, they are dehumanizing Jews.

Setting aside the actual abortion issue for a moment, look at what’s going on here.  Some students disagree with some other students.  Their solutions?  1) rudely disrupt their activities, and 2) get their club suspended.  The obvious intent here is to deny the pro-life group the right to speak their position.  Silence the opposition.

As for the protesters and their position on abortion?  I think it goes like this:

• Don’t harrass me with the truth.
• Don’t make me look at what I support.
• Don’t … burst … my … bubble.

If you’re among them, and the following photos make you feel “harassed” “unsafe” and “personally attacked” – good.   It might just “humanize” you, along with the “foetuses,” and make you change your mind.

fetus 15 weeks

fetus 4.5 months

fetus 24 weeks

aborted fetus

aborted fetus 7 months

aborted fetus, head and arm detached

If you’ve made it this far, I’d encourage you to visit the Holocaust Memorial Wall.  There are no more graphic photos, but you can  adopt an aborted baby and give it the name and identity it was denied.

Another good site is Personhood USA, who seeks to establish legal “personhood” for pre-born children through peaceful activism, legislative efforts and ballot-access petition initiatives.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

As I haven’t had time to keep Obama’s dictionary up to date (dodging through all the smoke & mirrors is a dangerous and time-consuming process) I’ve decided to finish it right here and now. I think these two last entries should cover just about anything the man might say.

Entry #8: no = yes

Entry #9:  yes = no

Is he right? Do we, as a nation, uphold the teachings of Christ? Read the rest here.

Before I get to that, though, I just want to state that I’m 100% against federal funding of stem cell research. Then again, I’m 100% against federal funding of any research. But onward.

Before signing the death warrant, the messiah declared:

Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

Isn’t that nice? What a nice, understanding man. But I didn’t quite understand how respecting someone’s point of view meant forcing them to violate that view, so obviously a new definition was required:

Entry #6:

respect = you vill pay to do it my way

Then he continued: [emphasis added]

… The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.

… [to] ensure that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them – actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

No judgment calls allowed here. No moral dilemmas. This is all “scientific fact.” But what’s this?

And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this statement is based on scientific fact. In fact, it sounds a lot like … well … ideology … or a moral judgment … or at the very least, a political decision that the people haven’t been sufficiently brainwashed to swallow this one yet.

Entry #7:

scientific facts = my political agenda

Give the messiah points for multitasking, though. In just one speech, he covered both of these bases:

SB 406, which defines person for the purposes of application of inalienable rights,states, “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights…person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.”

This was recently passed by the Montana Senate, which is now in a race with North Dakota to pass the first “personhood” law, may God bless them both mightily.

Hat tip to Jon-Paul at The Thinker, who makes the excellent point that “viability” must be determined by the competence of our medical science, which is a pretty nebulous criteria to determine when life begins. If the doctors this year can keep a baby alive at 24 weeks, and next year at 22 weeks, has the beginning of life changed simply because we’ve learned more?

As a bonus of this language, I do believe it might also keep them from bumping off us old folks when we can’t contribute anymore.