It has been, however, the IRS that expanded even beyond Johnson’s ill intent to include churches and faith-based non-profits in its interpretation of the law, effectively chilling the free speech rights that had been practiced by church leaders since the Founding of America. The reality is, however, that from the beginning politicians intended to use the non-profit status as a stick to silence opposition. President Obama has simply gone further than any other administration in its application.

So, don’t act so surprised and indignant over the Obama administration’s use of the IRS to intimidate and silence its opposition. They are simply using a very bad law for its intended purpose.

But, we are always willing to give them another chance to demonstrate real, honest logic.

And we have just the statement for them to prove themselves:

In an article this weekend in RTD about Republican Gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli, Democrat Delegate and “chairman of the Democrat Party of Virginia” Charniele Herring was quoted as saying the following:

“Ken Cuccinelli’s extreme tea party rhetoric should remind Virginians of the singular focus of his career: outlawing a woman’s right to make her own decisions.  From his ‘personhood’ legislation that would have banned the birth control pill to his backdoor abortion ban regulations, Ken Cuccinelli has always put his extreme agenda ahead of what’s best for Virginia families, and that is absolutely what he would do as governor.”

The quote we’d love to see “PolitiFact” review is “From his ‘personhood’ legislation that would have banned the birth control pill….”

One can only assume that by “personhood” legislation Del. Herring means HB 1, legislation that was defeated during last year’s General Assembly session.  The first part of Del. Herring’s falsehood is the use of the word “his” when referring to the bill.  Perhaps she was too busy stirring up left-wing hysteria to notice that the Attorney General is no longer a member of the General Assembly and can’t introduce legislation?  The bill was the work of Delegate Bob Marshall.

But it is the oft repeated line from the secular left and abortion industry, which Del. Herring represents, that the bill would have “banned the birth control pill,” that we would like to see PolitiFact review.

Here are some facts:  Del. Herring, an attorney, apparently needs to brush up on her Constitutional law, and maybe actually read the bill.  We’ll do some of the research for PolitiFact so they know where to get started:  Griswald v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a constitutional right to birth control.

But, you know, that was a long time ago and Del. Herring is young, so maybe that one slipped her mind.  So, how about Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490 (1989)), another U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the Constitutionality of a Missouri law that includes nearly identical language to HB 1.  Oh, and as far as we know, birth control is still available in Missouri.

But even if you parse those decisions and conclude that, somehow, someway, HB 1 was in direct conflict with two (2) U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that a likely challenge to the law would have resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, overturning Griswald, the bill included the following:

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful contraception.

There is little doubt that PolitiFact will parse nearly every claim made by pro-life groups during this election cycle.  There is also no doubt that, as they have for over a year, the abortion industry and its apologists in the Democrat Party will make the same claim made by Del. Herring.

So, our challenge to PolitiFact: review Del. Herring’s words, the bill, and the Supreme Court decisions mentioned above and tell Virginians – do two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the actual words of the bill matter?

Today, Governor McDonnell launched “Virginia Adopts,” an initiative to promote adoption and foster care with the coal of finding 1000 families for children who need placement in permanent families. Joining him at the ceremony was former first lady Anne Holton, wife of Democrat U.S. Senator Tim Kaine.

But of course, the ACLU and EV are not happy with the idea of finding moms and dads for 1,000 children. They have to turn it into a political issue, attacking the program because Virginia law (and the state Constitution) prohibits same-sex couples from adopting (homosexual individuals can adopt in Virginia). Instead of recognizing the right of kids to have both a mother and father, the ACLU and EV focus instead on the personal desire of a handful of adults and turn what should be an area of agreement and a completely non-partisan issue into just another political dispute (oh, and fundraiser no doubt).

And, of course, the Richmond Times-Dispatch is more than happy to help.

It is unfortunate that some in our Commonwealth are so bent on getting their own way that they are willing to take a positive, child centered, family focused initiative and attempt to trivialize and politicize it. There is a word for it — selfish.

Given the media’s blackout of the trial for its first few weeks and then the trivial coverage it gave once the Mainstream Media had been exposed, it’s difficult to know exactly how many Americans actually know what happened at 3801 Lancaster Street in Philadelphia, how they will respond, or if they actually care.

But if this case has done anything, it’s ripped the cover off an abortion industry that most Americans want to ignore, hide from and pretend doesn’t really exist. To face the reality of abortion exposed by Gosnell, one must face the explicit hypocrisy and illogic of “I’m morally against abortion but I can’t impose my view on someone else.” Worse, the case did indeed present Americans who are paying attention with the “baby factor,” the persistent evidence that there are a growing number of people in our nation who are just as comfortable with the taking the lives of children after they are born as they are with the taking the lives of children in the womb. They, in fact, recognize both as human beings, just not valuable human beings.

First, we had the video of a Planned Parenthood staffer in Florida testifying that such a decision should be left up to a woman and her doctor, and then the multiple videos of abortion center staff members dismissing the killing of already born children. But why not? If life begins at some arbitrary point on a continuum, what are a few hours? Clearly, a baby just outside the birth canal can’t be any more morally defendable than one just inside.

Remember, just three years ago, Virginia had to update its law to ensure that the murder of a baby already born, but still attached to its mother by umbilical cord, is a crime. This after a woman went unprosecuted for letting her baby die while still attached to her.

Most people, my guess is, dismiss those cases as “isolated” and go back into their world of “if I can’t see it I won’t be bothered.” But in all the cases listed above, you can see it. You can look into its eyes. You can see it’s a human being. That is, most of us can.

But not all.

Just last year, in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Experts, two physicians made the case for “after-birth abortion:”

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion”, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice “after-birth abortion” rather than “euthanasia” because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

This is nothing but the logical outcome of abortion on demand. And this is where America is headed if cases like Gosnell don’t force Americans to face the reality of an abortion industry most would rather ignore.

In labeling a statement by Congressman Randy Forbes about anti-Christian bigotry at a recent military training program “Mostly False,” they take logical gymnastics to a whole new level.  The story goes like this: at a U.S. Army Reserve Briefing in Pennsylvania, a presentation was made that included a slide entitled “Religious Extremism” that listed “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” right along with “Al Quaeda” and “Hamas.”  (Oh, and identifies the Ku Klux Klan as “Christian” for good measure.)  Lots of media covered it, and Forbes, known for his principled defense of religious liberty, made several statements about the incident.

You can review the slide in question by clicking here and going to slide 24.

After receiving complaints (were they surprised?), the slide was removed from the presentation and the military made statements to the effect that no one had a clue what was in the presentation and it was all the presenters fault, or something like that.  Oh, and they added that the presenter was “not a subject matter expert.”

Seriously?  Let’s hope the guy presenting on how to fly the drones is a “subject matter expert.”

While PolitiFact admits the presentation with the slide “…did happen,” it adds an astonishing statement: “Forbes statement has an element of truth but ignores critical facts….”

The element of truth, I guess, is that the incident actually happened.

Yet, PolitiFact itself completely ignores “critical facts” about repeated incidents of anti-Christian bigotry that give Congressman Forbes’s comments context.  A list of these incidents, found here, includes:

• A War Games scenario at Fort Leavenworth that identified Christian groups and Evangelical groups as being potential threats;
• A 2009 Dept. of Homeland Security memorandum that identified future threats to national security coming from Evangelicals and pro-life groups;
• A West Point study released by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center that linked pro-lifers to terrorism;
• Evangelical leader Franklin Graham was uninvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer service because of his comments about Islam;
• Christian prayers were banned at the funeral services for veterans at Houston’s National Cemetery;
• Bibles were banned at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – a decision that was later rescinded;
• Christian crosses and a steeple were removed from a chapel in Afghanistan because the military said the icons disrespected other religions;
• Catholic chaplains were told not to read a letter to parishioners from their archbishop related to Obamcare mandates. The Secretary of the Army feared the letter could be viewed as a call for civil disobedience.

And just this week we learned that a virulent anti-Christian had been hired by military leaders at the Pentagon as a consultant on policies about religious expression.

There’s little doubt PolitiFact is well aware of these incidents given the in-depth research they claim to do.  Why not include them to give Forbes’s remarks more context?  Instead, they worry that Forbes’s statement might give the “wrong impression.”

Yea, cause the truth apparently gives the wrong impression.

As we await the verdict, the conversation surrounding his “house of horrors” has centered around the question of whether or not Gosnell is an anomaly in an otherwise safe and health care-focused industry, or if the abortion industry has more Gosnells that simply have yet to be discovered. Obviously, the abortion industry and most in the mainstream media would have us believe that Gosnell is an aberration caused more by the lack of government (taxpayer) funding than unmitigated inhumanity and evil (what, you thought they’d actually admit the guy is evil?).

But facts surrounding that case, and the pattern that is developing in many states regarding the abortion industry’s lack of concern for health and safety, not to mention its utter lack of recognition of human dignity and worth, have to lead any reasonable, thoughtful American to wonder just what the truth might be. Given that representatives of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation knew what was happening inside Gosnell’s clinic, knew of the despicable conditions and rumors of the murders, and did absolutely nothing about it, reasonable people should be questioning the abortion industry’s claims.

We certainly know the media isn’t going to do it for us.

Yesterday, the pro-life group Live Action released videos from two abortion centers, one in Washington, D.C., and one in New York City, that show doctors at those facilities admitting that they would do nothing to save the lives of born-alive babies, babies who are living, breathing human beings. This comes on the heels of disturbing testimony by a Planned Parenthood representative in Florida who, before a legislative committee, essentially defended euthanasia on the basis that the decision to keep a new born baby alive is “between a woman and her doctor.”

Do these incidents represent the true philosophy of the entire abortion industry? Are they so callous to all human life that even those babies already born are viewed as disposable waste, nothing more than “products of conception” that can be flushed down a toilet or run through a garbage disposal? Do they care so little about the women that enter their facilities that they will keep quiet even when they know about horrifically unsanitary conditions that put lives at risk?

And perhaps worse, how can these incidents not elicit any kind of outrage from the public, let alone politicians? Or is it that the reality of what the abortion industry is really about forcing people to ask questions about their own “pro-choice” attitudes that they really never wanted to have to ask? Uncomfortable yet?

In Virginia, the abortion industry has been quick to dismiss Gosnell. Mind you, we have yet to hear anyone within the Virginia abortion industry, its defenders in the General Assembly, candidates for statewide office, or editorial pages utter a single word of criticism. Hysterical in all other ways, the Virginia abortion industry’s silence on Gosnell is deafening. But maybe they know something we don’t. After all, abortion operators like Steven Brigham and Diane Derzis — both of whom operate facilities in Virginia — have long records of health and safety violations in other states, and have had abortion centers closed by public health officials and their medical license revoked or suspended. Their abortion centers here, under inspections that were part of the emergency safety standards under the 2011 abortion center legislation, were found to have dozens of health and safety violations.

Are there Gosnells in Virginia? No one outside the abortion industry really knows. Virginia’s facilities had weeks to clean up their act before announced inspections last year, after going two decades with no oversight at all. Despite the warning, nearly 300 deficiencies were found. And while the media continues to whine about construction standards, it remains silent on the blood stained patient tables, unsterilized equipment, expired drugs and untrained staffs. What was happening in those places before health inspectors gained access is anyone’s guess.

Earlier this week the editorial writers at the Washington Post put to ink their tears over the closing of one abortion center in Virginia, allegedly because its owners don’t have the money to upgrade the facility to meet Virginia’s new health and safety standards. They were horrified at the thought that one out of 20 abortion centers is closing. Incredibly, the Post labeled the clinic a “victim,” while the same newspaper for weeks did all it could to intentionally ignore the hundreds of true, human victims of Kermit Gosnell. The disconnect from basic humanity rendered in that dichotomy tells us all we need to know about how incapable too many in the media are at recognizing evil, at seeing human victims in the faces of tiny babies murdered at the hands of a profiteer.

God help us if the public feels the same way.

He is, after all, the first person to be convicted of domestic terrorism in Washington, D.C., under post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws. You would think his crime would be known.

Perhaps the reason the media doesn’t like to talk about it is his target — The Family Research Council — and his motive, hate for people who believe in traditional marriage. Or perhaps it’s the simple fact that not enough people were killed or injured to merit news coverage. Of course, the only reason for that is a man who in a moment became a hero, Leo Johnson, the security guard at FRC:

Maybe, since the Southern Poverty Law Center is a go-to organization for many in the media, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the link between that organization’s bigotry and an attack on FRC would be suppressed. Unfortunately, this is the culture we live in today.  If the attack doesn’t fit the media narrative, it is simply ignored or underreported. And organization’s that may have contributed to the violence continue to be promoted by the same media.

After all, like Chris Matthews said of the Boston bombers, motive doesn’t really matter anyway, right?

Coincidentally, JHU, a private university, is home to current conservative rising star Dr. Ben Carson, a world renowned pediatric neurosurgeon.

The arguments against the dastardly pro-life group are nothing new, of course.  Those who oppose them don’t want to be bothered with having to “defend our position” on one of the most important issues facing our culture, or be made (hold on tight), “uncomfortable.”  People are offended, blah, blah, blah.

Ironically, JHU’s motto is, “The truth will set you free.”

Chew on that one for a while.

Oh, and students at JHU are also in a tizzy over Dr. Carson’s outspoken support of conservative principles and are seeking to block him from speaking at the medical school’s commencement ceremony in May.

These incidents are more examples of the secular left’s complete inability to allow for dissenting opinion or argument.  They remind me of a child who sticks their fingers in their ears and yells so they can’t hear their parent.  Only the left’s incessant bullying of any public figure who dares challenge the secular narrative is anything but funny.  Anyone foolish enough to believe that the left is open to “compromise” and “dialogue” simply hasn’t been paying attention; they want capitulation.

Virginia’s General Assembly this year passed, and the Governor signed, legislation that will prevent discrimination against student groups on the Commonwealth’s publicly funded university campuses.  For those who wonder why we needed such a law, we need look only to Johns Hopkins.

It’s not an unfamiliar talking point.  We’ve been hearing similar spin since the tax package passed the General Assembly a few weeks ago.  The oft-repeated line is something like, “well, it’s a compromise, and it must be good because there’s something in it for everyone to dislike.”

As usual, it’s a talking point the media never challenges.  So I will.

Now, we all know where Republicans who voted for the tax hike compromised.  You know, that pesky ideology principle about keeping taxes low.

But here’s the question that wasn’t asked this morning on the radio, and I have yet to hear asked of any Republicans championing the tax hike: Exactly where did the liberals in Richmond compromise?  What is it that they wanted that they didn’t get?

I suppose one could argue that liberals didn’t get the enormous increase in the gas tax they wanted because this plan does away with the gas tax.  Except the plan simply transfers the tax to the wholesale side and has a built in increase that could potentially surpass cost of the the current tax.  Oh, and they get a half dozen or so other tax and fee hikes for which they didn’t ask.

Perhaps one could argue that liberals didn’t get as much revenue as they wanted.  Well, that has some merit, except that liberals never get as much revenue as they want because they have an insatiable appetite for our money.  So this one says that the best response of defenders for what may become the largest tax hike in history is that liberals still didn’t get as much as they wanted?  Nice try.

Oh, I know, it’s the inclusion of the dastardly “user fee” attached to hybrids.  They’re really mad about that one.

Wait, I got it!  There’s the use of all that General Fund money for transportation that liberals just hate, you know, “paving roads with school books and bed pans” and all that.  Umm, except that is predicated on the very unlikely passage of the federal “Marketplace Equity Act.”  If that doesn’t happen, the General Fund amount going to transportation is about what liberals offered in the first place – next to nothing.

Yup, it’s a compromise alright.  The problem is, it’s a one sided compromise.

In this case, the liberals stuck to their “rigid ideology.”  And won.

From the Associated Press:

A medical assistant told a jury Tuesday that she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies during unorthodox abortions at a West Philadelphia clinic, at the direction of the clinic’s owner.

And she said Dr. Kermit Gosnell and another employee did the same to terminate pregnancies.

Adrienne Moton’s testimony came in the capital murder trial of Gosnell, who owned the clinic and is on trial in the deaths of a patient and seven babies. Prosecutors accuse him of killing late-term, viable babies after they were delivered alive, in violation of state abortion laws.

Gosnell’s lawyer disputes that any babies were born alive and challenges the gestational age of the aborted fetuses.

Moton, the first employee to testify, sobbed as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one baby left in her work area in 2008. She thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. She had measured him at nearly 30 weeks.

Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said.

Cold.  Heartless.  Evil.

Of course, the abortion industry in Virginia is quick to claim that its facilities are safe and healthy and that nothing like what happened in Philadelphia could happen here.  All Virginia’s abortion doctors are upstanding citizens.  And those abortion center standards that include inspections that the Board of Health is about to vote on?  Unnecessary “barriers” to a woman’s right to choose.

That’s not a new argument.  It’s one used to protect Hermit Gosnell for nearly two decades:

After 1993…the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.

“That could never happen here” are the words of the uninformed.  It could happen here.  It might have already happened here and we would never know it.  Virginia’s abortion centers have had the same protection as Hermit Gosnell for over twenty years.  No standards and no oversight.

Until now.  Now, the barrier to truth is about to fall.

Click here to make sure your comment in support of abortion center health and safety standards is heard by the Board of Health.

If you don’t know about the Gosnell story, there may be a reason.  I went onto the Richmond Times Dispatch website and searched “Gosnell.”  The only “story” that appeared was a five sentence synopsis of the trial beginning.  No details.  Apparently, it doesn’t fit the narrative the RTD editors want you to know.