Why do I vote only for pro-life candidates?

 As far back as July 4, 1776, we as a people have embraced the right to life, as expressed in the Unanimous Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”


“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”


Statement-1 “We will appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, and will protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion”

Statement-2 “We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion”

Statement-3 “We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Statement-4 “We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming.”


Statement-1 “The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

Statement-2 “We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.”

Statement-3 “We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.”


Libertarians and Democrats hold a position contrary to the principle of government set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

A government that does not secure the Right to Life will not shy from denying all other rights.

In this November election, the Democrat Party and the Libertarian Party publicly stand for abortion on demand. Government sanctioned murder of children in the womb is anathema to the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Furthermore, the fundamental Right to Life was made an ordinance for all mankind via The Sixth Commandment of the Law given by God through Moses that prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13, Proverbs 16:16-19)

Only the Republican Party aligns with history, the Will of God and the Declaration of Independence.

John White
Rockwall, Texas

Democrats v Republicans – Do You Know the Differences?

10 September 2014

Worldview: Progressives versus Conservatives

America imagine a world without itLeading into this discussion, I quote from America: Imagine A World Without Her, by Dinesh D’Souza, Chapter 2, Page 22.

Progressives sometimes sound anti-American, but they are not simply advocates of destruction. In destroying one America they seek to construct another: In other words, their unmaking is a prelude to a remaking. So there is a vision of America that progressives afirm. It just happens to be very different from, indeed antithetical to, the vision that conservatives affirm. Contrary to what we hear, the great American divide is not a clash between conservatives who advocate liberty versus progressives who oppose liberty. Rather, the two sides each affirm a certain type of liberty. One side, for example, cherishes economic liberty while the other champions liberty in the sexual and social domain. Noris it a clash between patriots and anti-patriots. Both sides love America, but they love a different type of America. One side loves the America of Columbus and the Fourth of July, of innovation and work and the “animal spirit” of capitalism, of the Boy Scouts and parochial schools, of traditional families and flag-saluting veterans. The other side loves the America of tolerance and social entitlements, of income and wealth redistribution, of affirmative action and abortion, of feminism and gay marriage.

Now you are ready to compare the two major parties. Click on the link below for a full chart in PDF format.








For me, the bottom line comes through clearly on two issues:

  • Pro-Life vs Pro-Abortion
  • Unnatural Marriage vs Natural Marriage

On the first point, I have learned how a pro-life policy maker will also support all the Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. Regarding the second, my viewpoint will be spelled out in greater degree in a later post. For now, as a Christian, I believe the holy relationship marked by natural marriage of one man and one woman is an atom in the greater molecule of the Kingdom of God, as described in Ephesians 5:25-33.

In a debate between the chairmen of the Democrat and Republican parties, Democrat Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa and Republican Chairman Steve Munisteri, Chairman Hinojosa pointed out tension in the GOP, as witnessed at the GOP state convention. Chairman Munisteri readily acknowledged the tension.

Tension is the tool we use to clarify and purify our arguments. Is there tension in the Democrat Party? Oh, yes, and it’s growing by the day.

Time was when the GOP was the party of big business, but roles have switched. It is the Democrat Party that has become the property of big business. As I write and as you read, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pushes and bribes lawmakers to open our southern border to unlimited immigration in order to staff labor intensive industries with cheap labor, wholly contrary to the interests of labor unions, traditional Democrat supporters.

Libertarians would have you believe there is no difference between the two major parties. They just look at life through a very narrow aperture.

John White

Pro-life Voter Alert! Beware of Last-Minute False Attacks on Dr. Bob Deuell


Pro-life Voter Alert!

Beware of Last-Minute False Attacks.

Texas State Sen. Bob Deuell, a pro-life family physician, authored the most courageous pro-life bill in decades (SB 303), which would defend the sanctity of human life with new tal-endorses-bob-deuellprotections for patients and families facing end-of-life decisions. Sen. Deuell’s pro-life bill was supported by the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, and Texas Alliance for Life.

The Texas Senate passed SB 303 by a wide margin. Unfortunately, a powerful Houston-based political action committee and others conspired to attack this and other new pro-life legislation. Now, these same groups are engaged in a last-minute attack campaign against Sen. Deuell in a shameless effort to mislead pro-life voters and defeat the strongest pro-life legislator in Texas. Don’t let them succeed.

This video explains exactly what SB 303 would have done to help families protect their loved ones near the end of life.

Texas Alliance for Life proudly endorses Dr. Bob Deuell for re-election to the Texas State Senate in District 2.

We urge pro-life voters in District 2 to bring your family and friends with you to the polls to support Dr. Bob Deuell. Vote early on Monday, May 19, through Friday, May 23. Election Day is Tuesday, May 27. 


The above posted from email alert from Texas Alliance of life and was used without the permission of TAL PAC.

Follow us on Facebook as 'TEA Party Rockwall'
Texas: A bastion of hope to freedom loving people around the world

Status Quo Has to Go – A Call for New GOP Leadership

America, from the beginning: Immense Geography, Fixed Resolve on NOTHING LESS than Independence

RINO’s Turn on the Tea Party. Did you see this Coming?

An excerpt from The First Salute, by Barbara W. Tuchman, Ballantine Books, pages 177-178

The only change the British war ministers made [in 1778] was to name a new Commander-in-Chief of British forces in America. Sir William Howe, whose heart was not in the fight, was replaced by Sir Henry Clinton, who was not an improvement. The appointment of Clinton — a cousin of the Duke of Newcastle, manager-in-chief of political patronage — was not unrelated to his having the right ‘connections.’ It gave direction of the war in the field to a man of neurotic temperament, whose constant hesitation always made him reach decisions too late for the event that required them.

“Within three months of his appointment in May, 1778, Clinton’s survey of the elements of the situation — its immense geography, the fixed resolve of the rebels on nothing less than independence, … and the absence of active support by a large and eager body of Loyalists which the British had counted upon — left the new Commander-in-Chief with little enthusiasm and no illusions. Almost his first act, as he tells in his postwar narrative, was to solicit the King for leave to resign, on the ground of the ‘im¬practica-bility’ of the war. Refused in his request, Clinton became unhappy … from recognition … that the war was unwinnable. The means were too limited for the task. He complained of delay in promised reinforcements, which left him without adequate forces and ‘without money, provisions, ships or troops adequate to any beneficial purpose,’ while being constantly prodded for more vigorous action here, there, or anywhere by Lord Germain, the war minister at home, his ministerial chief whom Clinton disliked and distrusted.

” ‘For God’s sake, My Lord,’ he wrote in one exasperated outburst, ‘if you wish me to do anything, leave me to myself and let me adapt my efforts to the hourly change of circumstances.’ By September, 1780, he writes flatly to Germain his opinion of the ‘utter impossibility of carrying on the war without reinforcement.’ This was wishing for the moon. Imperial Britain did not have the population to match the extent of her dominion, nor the funds to spend on more mercenaries, whose further employment would, in any case, have risked rancorous fury in the [British Parliamentary] Opposition. Reinforcements would not be forthcoming. It was the old — and ever new — condition in war of ambitions outreaching re¬sources.

“Believing his field army in New York to be too few in numbers (which seems to have been a case of nerves, since he well knew that Washington’s army, suffering from shortages and mutinies, could not attack), and alarmed by ‘threatening clouds . . . which begin to gather in all quarters,’ Clinton became prey to ‘the deepest uneasiness’ and, like [Prime Minister] Lord North, repeatedly peppered the King with his wish to be relieved of the chief command and to turn it over to Lord Cornwallis, who was conducting the campaign in the South. Now in his uneasiness he not merely asked, but ‘implored’ His Majesty to be relieved of the high command, and on a third occasion, his plea becomes a ‘prayer’ for release. Though he was clearly not a general for the bold offensives wanted by the King, he was retained. King George, in his passionate conviction of righteous conquest and confidence in bold action, was left to depend for his chief lieutenants, one in the political and one in the military field, on a pair of reluctant coachmen, each of whom wished only to let go of the reins and descend from the coachman’s box. That is not the way wars are won.”

Take note of the very last sentence: “That is not the way wars are won.

It’s time to raise up bold, educated, conservative leaders to replace “reluctant coachmen” now heading – hindering, actually – the Republican Party.

Open Letter to Senator John Cornyn – Stand Down Your Circular Firing Squad

Sen. John Cornyn

517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

Reference: Circular Firing Squad Formed Around Todd Aikin

Senator Cornyn,

I remember well when you and others at the top of our party pledged your support of Charlie Crist who has come out endorsing BARACK OBAMA. I remember, too, listening to a radio interview of Marco Rubio by Glenn Beck. Beck said to Rubio, “The last time I looked they (GOP leadership) have all the money.” Rubio thoughtfully replied: “Yes, and he last time I looked, we (the people of Florida) have all the votes.”

Sarah Palin joined your circular firing squad around Mr. Aikin. Some of my Facebook friends also fell into agreement with you after Sarah Palin put in her “two cents worth”. But, for the record, God gave me enough ‘gray matter’ to form my own opinions.

Senator Cornyn, I did something you haven’t done: I actually looked into the track record of Todd Aiken and found him to be an honorable, pro-life candidate from the great state of Missouri.

If you wish to take a break from that circular firing squad, I suggest you listen to this 11-minute interview of Todd Aiken by Mike Huckabee.

Mike Huckabee interviews Todd Aikin
Click on the image above to hear 11 minutes of audio as Mike Huckabee interviews Todd Aikin

Let’s keep our eye on the prize, Mr. Cornyn. Your track record at picking winners isn’t as remarkable as you think. In fact, it isn’t remarkable at all. The people of Missouri will pick their Senator, not you or your senatorial election committee.

Perhaps the choice before Missouri voters is unclear to you. I suggest the choice is very clear and I expect Todd Aikin to be seated in the US Senate come January.


The Rockwall Conservative

Conservative Aikin or the Obama admirer, Claire McCaskill?
It’s an easy choice for Missouri voters: Pro-life Conservative Todd Aikin or pro-abortion liberal Claire McCaskill who backs Obama approximately 90% of the time?

Judge’s Mom Chose Life

For You did form my inward parts; You did knit me together in my mother’s womb. I will confess and praise You for You are fearful and wonderful and for the awful wonder of my birth! Wonderful are Your works, and that my inner self knows right well. — Psalm 139:13-14

Mississippi passed a law requiring abortionists to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

Abortion profiteer Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed suit in federal court to block enforcement of the law and federal district court judge Daniel Jordan entered a temporary restraining order, setting a hearing for July 11, 2012 to see if the order should be extended.

“In this case, plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi,” Jordan found.

“They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.” [Source: Reuters – Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law]

In the state of Mississippi, what woman would use any doctor for her OBGYN exams who is not certified in obstetrics?

Another question: are there doctors in Mississippi certified in obstetrics? By the count of website HealthGrades.com, there are 137 obstetricians and gynecologists near Jackson, Mississippi.

According to the website of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this organization provides “Complete Annual GYN Exam” for $95, PAP smear, sonogram and abortion-related exams. If they have no one on staff “certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as to have admitting privileges at a local hospital”, who performs these low-cost exams – janitors?

No, it was not a Democrat president, but a Republican that appointed Daniel Jordan to this court. It was George Bush, sadly to say.

Elections have consequences. Appointments of judges who are ignorant, accidentally or intentionally, of our nation’s Christian foundations also have consequences.

President Ronald Reagan
“I notice that all of the people who support abortion are already born.”
President Ronald Reagan

Reverence for Life – Gatekeeper of Conservative Movement

“…is it surprising that today we have become so morally blind (for wickedness blinds) that we save the baby whales at great cost, and murder millions of unborn children?”
~ Alice von Hildebrand, The Privilege of Being a Woman, p.24

Political Discernment

If an Indiana Jones fan, you’ll remember that scene where the gentleman selected the wrong cup, drank from it and rapidly disintegrated into a pile of dust. Afterward, the old knight remarked, “He chose poorly.

How can one reliably discern which political candidates will best serve you? Well, if you’re an atheist, anarchist or homosexual, any ole candidate will do. But, if the bookends of your world view are the Old Testament and the New Testament, or if you have only one of those on which to pin your life perspective, you probably have a set of values characterized as the Judeo-Christian ethic.

According to the Bible, the Word of God, every word, is right “to those who have found knowledge”. So, how does this work for me? How can I discern candidates whose values align with my Judeo-Christian worldview?

A Brief Tour of the Bill of Rights

Before we go further, let’s review an important phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ~ Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Life, an unalienable right? Yes, life. Let’s also consider this simple phrase.

We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ~ Preamble to the Constitution

By omission of some words I intentionally draw focus to one word: Posterityall future generations. Our posterity is all our future generations, all the unborn Americans. All life is precious, a gift from God.

The Bill of Rights is based on the Right to Life. For example, the Second Amendment wasn’t added to assure us the right to “keep and bear arms”. It was added because within the scope of the Right to Life we have a right to self-defense. The whole of the Bill of Rights exists to support this Right to Life: liberty, freedom from self-incrimination, preservation of property essential to preservation of life, and so on.

The Bottom Line on Endorsements

I have learned an important truth: first and foremost, if a candidate is genuinely pro-life, he or she will have the best chance of getting everything else right.

A second factor is spiritual life. Is the candidate a faithful member of a local church or synagogue?

Third: what is the candidate’s track record? To what office(s) has the candidate been elected? What is his/her record on volunteer service? How has he/she participated in LOCAL leadership by way of political party or community organizations? What have they published?

Almost as important to me as the first is knowledge of history – not education (degrees), but knowledge.


2012 elections are upon us. People rapidly latch onto one favorite candidate or another. The Bible admonishes, “lay hands suddenly on no man…”. Let’s be thoughtful about whom we support for public office. Furthermore, let’s not allow ourselves to fall victim to the “halo effect”.

Above all, keep in mind we are vetting candidates for the PRIMARY races, not the general election. Your favorite may not make it through the primaries.