Besides being the day before my birthday, November 2 is Election Day. If you are concerned about the abortion issue, this is a rather important election.
At this moment, both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are controlled by the Democratic Party and, for the most part, the Democrats support abortion rights. Still, the votes in the House and the Senate are often very close because there are a number of Democrats who are pro-life. We saw the impact of that situation when the Congress considered health care reform and a number of pro-life Democrats who supported the bill forced President Obama to assure them that the new law would not fund abortions. Desperate for votes, Obama took the extraordinary step of signing an Executive Order confirming that the new law would not pay for abortions. That satisfied those Democrats, so they voted for the bill.
Since the Democrats are the majority party in both houses, it means that every chairman of every committee is a Democrat. And it is in the committees where all the action is.
Every year, pro-life Members of Congress introduced legislation that would in one way or another outlaw abortion. These bills can take different approaches but the bottom line is they want to make abortion illegal again. When those bills are introduced, they are usually referred to the Judiciary Committees. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is John Conyers, who is pro-choicer. When he sees these anti-abortion bills, he says thank you very much and proceeds to stuff them in a drawer, basically killing any chance of their being considered. They are DOA. The same thing happens in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But this November, it is very possible that Democrats in the House will lose a number of seats and the Republicans could actually be in the majority. If that occurs, come next January, when the new Congress is sworn in, a bill that is introduced to outlaw abortion could very well go to a new Chairman of that committee who would probably be pro-life. In that case, it is very possible that that chairman could then take steps to move that bill for consideration. Then the battle will be on. Yes, President Obama will be there for us to veto any bad bill but the pro-choice forces will have to mobilize, raise money, etc. to fight the bill.
Then there is the U.S. Senate. When President Obama has to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, the nomination goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is run by pro-choicer Pat Leahy. The current chairman will do everything he can to assure that Obama’s nomination is granted smooth sailing in the committee and on the floor of the Senate.
But should the Senate fall into the hands of the Republican Party, then you will have probably Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah as chairman and he is very pro-life. So, a nomination that is sent to his committee will have a much tougher time of it. Indeed, if the Republicans take over the Senate, there is a good chance that Obama’s pro-choice nominations will be defeated and he’ll have to nominate someone who is “neutral” on the issue of abortion.
So, the bottom line is you need to vote.
You need to do your research, find out who is running and vote for the one who is pro-choice.
You’ve got the power – use it.



October 17, 2010 at 4:51 am
It gets my dander up when I see you write stuff straight from Charles: “…and has never stopped forcing other women to bear babies nobody else wants to care for.” First of all, nobody can force women to bear babies. All we can do is persuade them to. And what was Alcorn’s alternative — remain silent while those mothers paid a killer to dispatch them?
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 8:13 am
so….. i disagree with him on the morality of abortion, but i agree with him on what the pro-life movement can do to stop them.
i agree with you on the morality of abortion, but i disagree with you on how to stop them ( although i have seen my way to be quite effective numerous times ) and i disagree with you on the morality of stalking and of killing abortionists in churches.
you are aware that your advocation of killing abortionists is contrary to the teachings of every mainstream pro-life organization, right?
you are aware that it is contrary to catholic teachings, right?
when i go to daily mass and pray rosary, would you prefer that i change the “our fathers” to “our dunkles”?
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 8:26 am
You’re right on everything, Rog, except that killing a baby killer is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Oh, and stalking. It is not stalking to stand outside a baby killer’s house holding “A Killer Lives Here” sign.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 3:04 pm
read cc 2267, john.
and yes, it is indeed stalking.
you’re definitely a legend in your own mind, and your acts do nothing to stop abortions.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Oh comeon, Rog. He was killing people whom you and I should have saved. Roeder saved them. You put everything in God’s hands and God called on one of his heroes.
Moreover, how do you know George is not redeemed?
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Where’s 2267 I find 2088. Then comes 1374. Then comes 1578. How do I follow this dang book?
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 7:52 am
“Nobody can force women to bear babies.” AHOOGAH! AHOOGAH! General Quarters! Dive! Dive!
This is such a manifestly false assertion, I hardly know where to begin. Let’s see; maybe if I start by proving the Earth is round and gently work up from there for this person.
Nah, take the quantum leap– here’s how people (men and children as well as women) can be forced:
1. Shame
2. Guilt
3. Threat
a. Of expulsion from the group
i. Family
ii. Church
iii. Social circle (includes military unit)
iv. Economic unit
v. Socio-political unit (neighborhood)
vi. Associational unit (bridge club, deer hunting gang)
b. Of extortion (“have an abortion, and I’ll tell everybody”)
c. Of death
d. Of abandonment (happened to my sister)
e. Of loss of income
f. Of loss of status (“Run away, and you won’t get the medal,
soldier…”)
Have I left off anything?
So-called “pro-life” demonstrators try to be skilled in using several of these and pretending they’re not using force…..
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 8:06 am
Charles is topsy-turvy here, as usual. Those are reasons people “force” women to kill babies.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 8:06 am
About Election Day, Pat~~
Here in my state the so-called ‘pro-lifers’ challenged the campaign spending limits law– it went all the way to the Supreme Court, which of course ruled in their favor. And now the Court has super-ruled in their favor with Citizens United.
I think perhaps the movement is morphing into a– what? lawsuit lobby?– mabe getting out of the direct action and relying on the worst Court since the days of Roger Tawney.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 8:16 am
And Rog, back at #9, that old person in church was going to torture to death more than a dozen young people the next day. Roeder saved those lives. What did you do? (Probably the same thing I did)
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 2:59 pm
what did i do?
i put everything in god’s hands.
i prayed for his conversion.
i remembered that god wanted redemption for dr tiller, just as much as he does for me, and i didn’t stand in the way of his conversion.
and when roeder killed him, i wept.
i wept for the man that in his heart thought he was doing the right thing, even though i believe that he wasn’t.
i wept because to me, he wasn’t “tiller the baby-killer”. he was a man who was misguided and thought that his acts were merciful.
i wept because i had been praying for him for a long time, and i saw that he wasn’t my enemy.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Ya know, Rog, I have to deal with you the same way I deal with Charles. You say thirty-seven things, maybe so I’ll forget the first thing. But I won’t play that game. I’ll deal with the first thing only. Later for the rest.
Now, the first thing you say is that God will take care of everything. Sure he will. But he wont come down himself to do it, will he. He’ll do it through one of us. God wanted those young people saved that George was about to kill. Scott saved them.
Your turn.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:35 am
you and roeder are hardly his servants, so it was obviously not the work of god that killed dr tiller.
you repeated ignore that scriptures teach us that the son died for the life of the world, not just for dunkle and roeder.
roeder stopped dr tiller from performing more abortions, but he stopped the conversion of dr tiller as well as took away his free will.
free will is necessary because there is no love without freedom.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:32 am
Oh oh, Rog, danger: five arguments in four paragraphs. You’re going Charles on me. I won’t go here past the first.
Of course I and Roeder are his servants, as are you and everybody else. He called on all his servants to save the lives of the babies Tiller was going to kill the next day. Only Scott answered his call.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:50 am
and just exactly how is standing in the way of conversion and robbing someone of free will, answering the call?
hmmmm?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Because “someone” was about to kill young people.
Rog, do you think George was a more valuable human being than any one of the twenty he was going to kill?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:17 pm
no, and i also don’t think he was any less valuable, which is why his murder was an atrocity.
his life had as much value and purpose as anyone else’s.
from the moment of conception, until the time of natural death.
remember that john?
i see nothing natural about killing someone on a sunday morning in a church while he greeted others to worhsip god with him.
there is no way that i will ever believe that god was pleased with the human sacrifice that roeder offered.
LikeLike
October 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Rog, #21. OK, found 2267. That says nothing about war; it’s about the death penalty!
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:37 am
and what exactly was roeder doing?
he put himself in the place of the state, as well as in the place of god.
in the extent that he put himself in the place of the state, there was no trial for dr tiller
in the extent that he put himself in the place of god, see above
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:35 am
No he didn’t, Rog, he put himself in the place of an enemy of the state. The state permits killing young people. It has to be stopped. God will stop it and I am convinced he will do it through people like Scott.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:52 am
epic fail, dunkle!
he put himself in the place of god.
god will indeed stop all killing, but he will do it in his time, not our time.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Think he’ll send his son again to whip the profaners out of the temple? Nope. That’s your job now, Rog, and mine, and Scott’s.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:19 pm
you’re mixing up bible stories, john.
and as i recall, jesus didn’t murder anyone in the temple
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:28 am
OK, Rog, just read the rest of #25, and it’s not as bad as I thought it would be. At least it doesn’t, like Charles’s stuff, fly all over the place. But what’s all this weeping over George? How do you know George is not in heaven. We both know that he was extremely brave and I suspect he was absolutely convinced he was doing the right thing.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:40 am
i only have trust in god’s mercy for him, just as i trust in his mercy towards me.
the weeping was because i put a lot of prayer into dr tiller, and saw tat he wasn’t my enemy.
try it sometime, john.
try honestly praying for someone that you think is your enemy, as cristo instructed us. a prayer other than “please lord, send an assassin for this person” would be nice.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:38 am
I do that, Rog, and when I get to know them, I even like many of my enemies. But I do pray that they will stop killing and helping to kill.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:53 am
yet you use the logic that it is acceptable to kill your enemies because maybe god will give them salvation?
jajajaja
you realize that choicers could use that same logic towards the aborted babies, right?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm
This one I don’t understand (shut-up, Charles).
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:22 pm
well, you keep spouting off like roeder did dr tiller a favor by killing him, and that dr tiller is now in heaven.
the choicers could easily use the same logic and say that all aborted babies are in heaven, so they were done a favor.
but the bottom line is that roeder robbed dr tiller of his free will.
for some reason you deliberately refuse to accept that fact.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:04 am
Woops! My mistake in #21. It was Charles, not you, who said that.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:41 am
people would do well to admit to all of their flaws, not just insignificant ones.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:38 am
But they’re the only ones I have!
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:57 am
you know, john…. sometimes we see ourselves in a way that is different than others see us.
you don’t see yourself as a stalker, but most of the people who encounter you do.
the sin of pride is very dangerous.
sins of the heart are sometimes more difficult to overcome than sins of the flesh.
sins of the flesh are more apparent, but sins of the heart are deep seated and often not apparent.
when is the last time you have been on a long retreat?
i think it is time for you to have a long silent retreat, so that you can actually listen to god, because whatever voices you have telling you what they tell you are not coming from him.,
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Geeze, Rob, lighten up!
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm
jajajajaja
i would imagine that if someone stood outside of your home and harassed your family and your neighbors, holding signs that said “a stalker lives here!”, you wouldn’t like it much, would you?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:04 am
Whoops!
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:33 am
On another blog, Rog, I am after another mistaken prolifer. What I told her applies to you too:
Kathy the Gnostic is back: “I can assure you…” What this means is “I know what’s going on and you don’t.”
What Kathy doesn’t seem to know is that pro-abortion people consider all of us prolifers terrorists. If someone says that a young person is murdered in an abortion, she is a terrorist, according to them, because eventually someone is going to take her seriously even if she doesn’t take herself seriously. And, you know, they are right, right, that is, about everything except the “terrorist” label. When we use that label ourselves, as Kathy does, we get sucked into their world and are rendered defenseless.
We have to distinguish between the use of force and terrorism. For example, when one is trying to kill innocent people, be they in rooms or wombs, he is a terrorist. When another tries to stop him, he is not a terrorist. To call him one also is to fall right into the baby-killers’ trap.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 7:45 am
>>>What Kathy doesn’t seem to know is that pro-abortion people consider all of us prolifers terrorists.<<<
some of them indeed do.
just as some lifers consider all choicers as murderers. personally, i am not comfortable using that term for anyone other than myself.
i don't think it is prudent to define the sinner by the sin.
if anyone has ever told even a little white lie, am i to label them a liar?
but what have you done to perpetuate the terrorist label, john? anything?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:42 am
No argument here. Only God know who are the murderers. All we know is that innocent people are being killed by the millions. If we Catholics do nothing about it, even if we do little about it, we are the murderers rather than the ignorant.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 10:02 am
you didn’t answer the question, john.
what have you done to perpetuate the label of terrorist that some choicers have for us?
i know a lot of choicers are scared of lifers, and i can understand why.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Absolutely nothing. Let me add this, though, if anyone courageous is around: if you do anything illegal, tell no one, NO ONE. Jim Kopp, Eric Rudolph, Stephen Jordi, to name a few, all made this mistake.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’m getting to respect you more as the posts pass, Rog. You’re the first person who’s accused me of not answering a question to repeat the question.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:29 pm
then i suppose that we can come to the conclusion that this habit of yours is deliberate.
after all, you whine that chuckles and i make too many points, so you will only address certain ones.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:27 pm
nothing?
i am a lifer and you scare the crap out of me, john.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 5:29 pm
And I should. I tell you what you don’t to hear. I tell you that, like me, you ain’t doing jack to oppose Satan in his latest attack on God. In fact, I tell you you are working for Satan.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:04 am
Well, well, well. I go out of town for four days for some R&R with my spouse and come back to this! Looks like Rogie and ole Dunkle are having a lot of fun.
Here’s what I dont get about Roeder. John says it was God’s will, or something like that, that Roeder killed Tiller because Tiller was an abortionist, blah, blah. But what ever happened to “thou shalt not kill?”
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:27 am
“Thou shalt not kill,” Pat, means don’t murder someone. It doesn’t mean the state may not employ the death penalty nor engage in a just war. That’s what we prolifers are engaged in here, that I am trying to open Rog’s eyes to see — a just war. Basically it comes down to this: you may use lethal force to stop someone from killing you and you may use it to stop him from killing someone else.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:59 am
and your rules of war state that gunning down grandfather in churches as they welcome others to come and worship the same god as you do, is acceptable?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“Acceptable”! Try heroic.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm
It was “heroic” to walk up to George in a church and shoot him?? Was George about to perform an abortion?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 2:05 pm
yes, yes
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm
i find nothing heroic about bloodshed.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Joan of Arc?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 10:00 am
welcome back, patty! 🙂
i saw amit over the weekend and he said to tell you hello
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Hey, Rogie! Who is “amit”?
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 4:33 pm
you guys knew amit as sugar.
his real name is amit.
he and his partner moved up here as he works on his masters.
he is a very nice young man.
i wish he were my son.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm
You mean “sugar britches”?
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 8:43 am
I did notice that Sugar is back!!!
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 12:48 pm
And Pat, I like ole Dunk better then ole Dunkle. Reminds of when I used to tell my students in the South Bronx that I invented the slam dunk. They’d be skeptical until I’d say, “well, they don’t call it the slam wilt or the slam kareem, do they?”
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 6:03 pm
OK, Rog, here are my responses to your “end” comments:
#1 Not even Roeder’s sacrifice of himself? Roeder stopped Tiller from torturing to death thousands of real people, people even more worthy of protection than himself, if we believe that the younger a person is the more tragic is his death. Roeder saved those lives, not us, although maybe our prayers figured into the equation.
#2 Killing, whipping, fire — where does your acceptance of the use of force begin and end?
#3 You say that Roeder robbed Tiller of his free will when, obviously, he willed to kill thousands more people. Shouldn’t you or I have robbed him of that intention?
#4 On the contrary, I would welcome that. I’ve been “threatened” with this at least two dozen times and I always invite the “threateners” to come. I’ve even promised them hot chocolate. They’re all talk, though; are you too, Rog.
#7 “then I suppose” – don’t understand
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:26 pm
>>>if we believe that the younger a person is the more tragic is his death<<<
that logic puts the lives of seniors at risk
"from the moment of conception until the time of natural death"
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:27 pm
>>>#2 Killing, whipping, fire — where does your acceptance of the use of force begin and end?<<<
what does that query have to do with the fact that stalking a victim and gunning them down ion church is an act of evil, as is applause of that act?
LikeLike
October 19, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Got it wrong, again, Rog: the act of evil is permitting a baby killer, indeed, one who has absolutely no intention of stopping killing and who the very next day has scheduled twenty killings, to be in a church.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 11:30 am
i have seen you make some lame posts before, but that one is over the top.
god’s love is inclusive, not exclusive.
jesus died for dr tiller just as much as he did for mother teresa.
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 11:32 am
i have seen you make some lame posts before, but this one is over the top.
god’s love is inclusive, not exclusive.
jesus died for dr tiller just as much as he died for mother teresa.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:28 pm
>>>Shouldn’t you or I have robbed him of that intention?<<<
no
apparently you don't understand about free will and the will of god
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:29 pm
>>>They’re all talk, though; are you too, Rog.<<<
not at all, but then, i also don't stalk people…. even stalkers.
apparently, you failed to see the irony in that scenario.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:30 pm
>>>#7 “then I suppose” – don’t understand<<<
i'm not surprised.
i urge you to see strong spiritual guidance.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:19 pm
>>>And I should. I tell you what you don’t to hear. I tell you that, like me, you ain’t doing jack to oppose Satan in his latest attack on God. In fact, I tell you you are working for Satan<<<
jajajajajaja
says the man who idolizes murders
it's not as though i want to hear everything i hear.
you can belittle my puny efforts to your heart's content.
that's not why i am scared of you.
LikeLike
October 18, 2010 at 9:25 pm
>>>people even more worthy of protection than himself, if we believe that the younger a person is the more tragic is his death.<<>>#2 Killing, whipping, fire — where does your acceptance of the use of force begin and end?<<>>Shouldn’t you or I have robbed him of that intention?<<>>They’re all talk, though; are you too, Rog.<<>>#7 “then I suppose” – don’t understand<<<
i'm not surprised
LikeLike
October 20, 2010 at 11:32 am
You’re not surprised about what?
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 11:36 am
i’m not surprised that you don’t understand.
your capacity for understanding appears limited by the blindness from your pride.
……our dunkle, who art in reading….
LikeLike
October 21, 2010 at 1:41 pm
silly
LikeLike