MAYBE GOD HEARD OUR PRAYERS. LOTS OF THEM.

By Tim Rohr

A Breitbart headline reads: "Exit polls suggest President-Elect Donald Trump won the Catholic vote by a whopping 15 points, the largest margin in decades."

As I've said in many posts, the Catholic vote is almost a sure thing for Democrats, and the more anti-Catholic they (the Democrats) are, the more they can count on the Catholic vote. At least that's how it has played out for -as the headlines says - "decades."

So what changed? 

We can't say that Catholics have suddenly lost their minds since voting for ever-more radically pro-abortion candidates for "decades" is certainly not "mindful," unless of course (as I believe) the majority of Catholics have been misled by their own bishops into thinking that abortion is no worse than being unfriendly to illegal immigrants or not being "green." 

So something woke up these Catholics this time around...and has restored my hope in what I've always believed to be a silent (if not mostly sleeping) majority. 

That "something" is probably the same "something" that woke up the rest of the country. It's not hard to figure out. Even though the border and the economy have been huge issues, I don't think it was "issues" which woke up the previous sleepers.

I believe it was the sheer insanity of the candidate the Democrat puppet masters put forward: a candidate who demonstrated time and time again that she had no clue how to answer a simple question or complete a sentence. 

Had the Democrats not tried to prop up Biden for so long (and lie to us as they did), the Dems might have had a fair and competitive primary, which, as was the case in 2020, would have weeded Harris out at the outset and the Dems would have had someone to credibly challenge Trump.

If I heard anything over and over this year it was comments like "I don't like either candidate." There was enough Trump-hate on both sides to keep him out of the White House, but the Dems, for whatever reason, went with Kamala when probably any other candidate, even a demented Biden, might have beaten Trump.

So that leads us to ask "who's calling the shots for the Dems?" 

Some think it's Obama. That may be true on many fronts, but I'm quite sure he didn't choose Kamala. Obama is smart and politically astute enough to have foreseen what would happen if Kamala was the candidate - which is exactly what happened. Also, while it was sort of a buried story, there was in fact a story about how Obama called Kamala several days after her nomination to say she had his support - when in fact that call should have come right away.

So who is calling the shots for the Dems? Somebody is for sure because how could a person who has never been elected to anything be elevated to Democratic candidate for president? 

Or maybe God just heard our prayers. Lots of them.

A "BEAUTIFUL ISLAND GIRL"

LINK to online version

Note: The Post has done a few edits to the published version. The original is set forth below.

As expected, the abortion issue blew up during the recent presidential debate with one of the main issues being whether or not Kamala Harris and the Democrats want to kill babies after birth. Here is the exchange:

TRUMP: "Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth — it's execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born — is OK.”

I suppose you would expect to see Harris’ reply but Harris didn’t have to reply because the debate moderator, Linsey Davis, replied for her:

DAVIS: "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born.”

Sometimes Trump’s passion gets the better of him so he missed an opportunity to invite Davis onto the stage and join Harris, but he also missed an opportunity to fact-check Davis’ fact-check.

Trump’s comeback should have been “what do you call discarding a crying, squirming, just born baby as bio-waste?” Because that is exactly what is perfectly legal in at least 15 states, including Minnesota where Governor Tim Walz signed a bill into law removing existing legal protections for children who survive botched abortions.

And because mothers probably don’t want to hear their baby crying while it dies in a trash can, the baby is sometimes immediately “dispatched.” There isn’t the room to document this here so just search for “drowning aborted babies.”

That’s why Trump called it “execution” and it is perfectly legal in 15 states. In fact, it was perfectly legal in Guam prior to November 27, 2013. That’s the date Public Law 32-090 was enacted.

Guam’s 2013 law mandates - among other things - that should a child survive an abortion the physician performing the abortion must take “all medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of an infant.” (9 GCA §91.04(d))

At its public hearing, the legislation (Bill 195-32) was vigorously opposed by none other than our now-governor. She was clever as to how she opposed it though, arguing that the legislation was “unnecessary: "I am aware that there is already federal legislation that addresses the issue at hand, thus making this legislation unnecessary." (Committee Report, Bill 195-32.)

The “federal legislation” Leon Guerrero was referring to was the 2002 Born Alive Infant Protections Act, which, while defining infants surviving botched abortions as “full persons under the law,” lacked an enforcement mechanism to protect those “full persons.”

Even though drowning said “full persons” in a toilet, tossing them out as bio-waste, or intentionally letting “full persons” die on the delivery table is essentially aggravated murder at worst and negligent homicide at best, Bill 195-32 stopped short of the penalty for murder or homicide and left the matter for civil and disciplinary action.

Nevertheless, requiring normal medical care for a living, breathing, just-born child who his or her mother didn’t want was too much for our now-governor so she functionally argued to let the baby die while lecturing the legislature to show “more concern” for the unemployment rate. (Committee Report, Bill 195-32.)

One of the testimonies in support of the bill was submitted by a mother who lost a daughter named “Natasha” - for whom Natasha’s Law was named. Natasha’s mother recommended that the legislation, if successful, be named “Kaitlyn’s Law.”

Kaitlyn was a baby girl who survived an abortion. In another testimony, Kaitlyn’s father tells the story:

“Our daughter, Kaitlyn, survived a late-term abortion by a woman who ingested pills issued (to her at the) Women’s Clinic. Instead of inducing (the) abortion as intended, the woman went into labor and a friend (drove) her to GMH where she delivered a live 3 1/2 pound ‘preemie’ and subsequently abandoned her there.Through the good offices of our priest and godly social worker, we took the child into our home at age 34 days. After three court appearances over the next eight months, she officially became our daughter.”

Kaitlyn’s father continues: 

“The girl is a bonafide miracle child. No only did Kaitlyn escape the medical issues one might expect in a child who entered the world under such adverse conditions, she emerged as a beautiful island girl, healthy, athletic and startlingly intelligent - nothing (my wife) and I can take genetic credit for, but we consider ourselves blessed for the privilege to raise such a child.”

Attached to his testimony are pictures of this “beautiful island girl” which you can see in the Committee Report for Bill 195-32 at GuamLegislature.com

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com   

 RESOURCES

FRC Releases Updated Map and Issue Brief, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors

SBA Pro-Life Score Card: Sen. Kamala Harris(former) California (Democrat)

Democrats Block Thune’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

THE POLITICAL FUTURE OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

LINK to online version

The national Republican Party and the Trump campaign are reportedly abandoning their previous pro-life platforms and many pro-lifers are feeling betrayed. But not me, and here’s why.

For nearly half a century pro-lifers had a single focus: overturn Roe v Wade. And that focus gave energy and clarity to everything pro-lifers did, from marches on the Capital to praying on sidewalks.

The efforts and focus of pro-life forces for those nearly fifty years were well-placed. The only recourse to Roe, a decision which led to an estimated one million abortions every year for fifty years, could only be a different decision by the same court. And that could only happen with a change in the composition of the court.

Such a change depended on a president who would appoint pro-life justices and a pro-life senate to confirm those appointments. So, in the face of Roe, the only power pro-lifers had, other than to keep the issue in the public eye, was to keep the political pressure turned up on electing pro-life presidents and members of the senate.

It took fifty years, but finally all the stars aligned after Donald Trump was elected president and three seats opened up on the Supreme Court bench. Fortunately, for pro-lifers, there was a Republican majority in the senate to confirm those appointments, but even so, the confirmation hearings were heated, vicious, personal, and partisan.

The pro-aborts knew what was coming. Candidate Trump had promised to appoint justices who would overturn Roe if he had the opportunity to do so, and he had the opportunity upon the deaths of Justices Atonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the retirement of Anthony Kennedy.

Two years after the appointment of the third justice,  Amy Coney Barrett, the Court voted 6-3 in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, finding that there was no constitutional right to an abortion and Roe was overturned.

Dobbs did not outlaw abortion. The reversal of Roe simply gave the decision back to the states where even pro-aborts like Justice Ginsburg believed it belonged all along.

At this point, pro-lifers should have changed their focus from the national stage to the local stage and used the same focus and energy to effect the legislation that the Dobbs decision afforded. And some did - as evidenced by the flurry of anti-abortion legislation in some states.

Meanwhile, though, it appears national pro-life organizations, accustomed to fighting on the national stage for fifty years, suddenly didn’t know what to do with themselves and turned their attention to a whole slew of other agenda items.

To name a few: opposition to the public funding of abortion, opposition to the public funding of Planned Parenthood, opposition to the sale of fetal tissue and fetal body parts, opposition to federal subsidies for healthcare which includes abortion coverage, and support for a human life amendment to the Constitution.

All of these are good and none of them are new. But what’s new is the lack of singular focus that opposition to Roe had provided, and what is left is a list of 27 agenda items national pro-life organizations want the GOP and the Trump campaign to commit to with the same singularity of focus as if Roe was still the law of the land.

And that’s not going to happen. While Trump has often expressed his belief that unborn life is sacred, he wasn’t coming at it with the religious crusader fervor of most pro-life Christians.From what I can tell, Trump simply believed that Roe was bad law and that its imposition on the American people for 50 years was tyranny. Trump’s remedy was to get rid of a bad law and return the decision to the states and to the people who live in those states. Indeed, he never promised to do more than that.

One disgruntled pro-life columnist, lamenting the removal of the 27 agenda items from the GOP platform, wrote: “This comprehensive list has been replaced by a generic statement: ‘We proudly stand for families and life,’ and an ambiguous reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, which, under current jurisprudence, does not recognize the legal personhood of the unborn.”

My recommendation is for these national pro-lifers to get out of “D.C.,” get home, and get to work. Like never before, the door is open to legislatively protect human life in all its stages: “from conception to natural death.” And we don’t need a party or a president to do it.

Tim Rohr has resided in Guam since 1987. He has raised a family of 11 children, owned several businesses, and is active in local issues via his blog, JungleWatch.info, letters to local publications, and occasional public appearances. He may be contacted at timrohr.guam@gmail.com  

HAPPY BIRTHDAY PETER JACKSON

By Tim Rohr

Again, taking a little detour from the usual JW stuff and sharing here a thing I left on my Facebook page .

"Looking back, I think we were a bit naive. At the beginning, I don't think anybody had any idea how difficult or complicated it would be. We somehow went into it thinking we could do it. And then we've stumbled along just taking each day at a time." - Peter Jackson 

I believe that this is how all big things are accomplished: stumble along taking each day at a time. The thing is to start and figure it out from there. 

This is contrary to the advice of most pop "self-help" gurus who market their goal-setting and plan-prepping in so many books and seminars. 

Of course, most of those guys really never did anything other than write books and do seminars. Real doers are people like Peter Jackson. They start with a vision and stumble along from there. 

This is similar to Donald Trump's business strategy as he sets out in his book "The Art of the Deal." Trump said he doesn't use a planner. He prefers to show up at the office, sit at a bare desk, and see what happens. 

I like that. And I do that. The trick though is to have and maintain the vision: to "feel the burn!"  😀

Anyway, as we all know - that troublesome saying: "Life happens while we're making other plans." So might as well see what "Life" has in mind. 

+++++

Link to the FB post with the full article about Peter Jackson