A Positive Message…

Too often, “hip hop” songs emphasize predatory sex and glorify street gangs and crime.. but this is a hip hop song with a different message.. as strong a pro-life message as I have ever seen, reportedly based on the true story of the artist:

Like everything else in this world, music can be utilized as a force for evil, or for good.  The positive message embraced by this song and video of this guy on a fishing boat gives me great hope that the pro-life message will reach those who are most drastically in need of it.  A whole generation of great minds and awesome potential is far too often being flushed down a sink or placed in a garbage dumpster.

33 thoughts on “A Positive Message…

  1. jesusfreakneil November 27, 2011 / 11:17 pm

    I love this video! Our life is ordained by God and it starts at conception. That is a fact!

    • James November 28, 2011 / 4:36 am

      That’s not a fact. That is religious dogma.

      The fact is that life if the child is not viable outside the womb, then it’s not really alive now is it?

      keep up the good fight though, the GOP does this all the time, bring up abortion right before elections, and rally up the base….

      • tiredoflibbs November 28, 2011 / 7:28 am

        Jimmy, tell that to the judges, juries and DAs that have arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced those individuals who have murdered pregnant women with TWO counts of murder!

        Not ONE, but TWO! There is even a man convicted of murder and sentenced to DEATH for the murder of his wife and unborn child in LIBERAL California no less – Scott Peterson – you may have heard of him.


        The courts have recognized the LIFE of an unborn child in cases such as these. Are you saying the courts are wrong? So when a woman gets a sonogram of her unborn child and there is clearly a heartbeat that is what …. indigestion and gas? Environmental laws recognized unborn animals and unhatched animals in their protection of wildlife sanctuaries. According to you, there is no life since these too are not viable outside of the womb or eggshell.

        Your regurgitated dumbed down talking points can’t help you here.

      • James November 28, 2011 / 7:39 am

        Maybe you’re just slow, or you choose to ignore the obvious.

        the criminal system recognizing that a woman was going to HAVE the child, and therefore, if she is murdered, her child’s death is a murder as well…..is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scenario than a woman who wants to have an abortion and the basic definition of life outside the womb.

        the fact that you mix the criminal justice system’s definition of murder of an unborn child, to the medical profession’s biological definition of an unborn child shows your lack of knowledge.

        FACT, is a baby cannot survive outside the womb, then by DEFINITION it’s not a viable human being. It’s a developing biological human.

        FACT, if a person kills a pregnant woman who was going to have a child but for her murder, then that person has committed a double homicide.

        It’s not that complicated. get with the program.

      • tiredoflibbs November 28, 2011 / 9:37 am

        wow, jimmy you are arguing both sides!

        It is life for condition A but not for condition B. So, is it life or isn’t it? I can’t be both.

        Again, you are listening to and regurgitating dumbed down talking points.

        Besides, I did not bring up abortion. I was showing that the courts recognize a fetus as having life. If it were not alive, then there could be no homicide charged to the perpetrator.

        Sadly, it is you who are slow witted as evidenced by your mindless regurgitation of talking points designed for the ignorant masses.

        Also, you need to improve your reading comprehension and logic skills – your conclusions are wrong, incoherent and not consistent from one to the other.

        Thanks for playing.

      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 10:38 am
      • James November 28, 2011 / 11:05 am

        Maybe you are slow, so I will break it down for you.

        It is life for condition A but not for condition B. So, is it life or isn’t it? I can’t be both.

        It’s not BOTH scientifically. The LEGAL system, and the Medical world have different definitions for different reasons. Science doesn’t look at a 2 week old fetus and say its alive when clearly its not viable outside the womb. This is a fact.

        The law on the other hand looks at the INTENT of the criminal, and the INTENT of the woman who was shot/killed. That woman had the INTENT of having that child, therefore, the child would have been BORN a human but for the act of murder committed. Therefore it is a double homicide. The legal system punished the criminal for an act two times not because the baby was viable at the time of the crime, but because the baby WOULD have been viable if carried to term by the victim.

        Besides, I did not bring up abortion. I was showing that the courts recognize a fetus as having life. If it were not alive, then there could be no homicide charged to the perpetrator.

        I already explained this dichotomy. please learn to follow along.

        Sadly, it is you who are slow witted as evidenced by your mindless regurgitation of talking points designed for the ignorant masses.

        Maybe you should not be so quick to delete other’s posts when you engage in childish name calling and derogatory postings. Or maybe you should get your head out of the sand and realize that the law seeks to punish the criminal to the maximum level.

        Nice try old one, come again.

      • js03 November 28, 2011 / 11:50 am

        life starts at conception…human life…and that is a medical fact…an empirical fact…not conjecture…

        jimmystooge is clueless

        im not EVEN going to try to explain God to him…at this point it would be a waste of time…

      • js03 November 28, 2011 / 12:16 pm

        the US Constitution is based on the Declaration of Independence…which states…

        “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 unalienable Right…the right to LIFE…without exception…is the law of the land…the “supreme” law of the land to boot…not open for discusion…not “viable” life…not a “wasted” life…not a “criminal” life…but ALL LIFE…period…

        no court, nor congress…has any right to change that…it is…an ‘UNALIENABLE” right…

        for this, men have fought and died for…as would I…

      • js03 November 28, 2011 / 12:34 pm

        now…to address the stooges use of the word “wit”…

        the pro death proponent in this battle…omit facts…omit education…and omit whenever possible…to insure that patients are fully informed about the abortion procedure…

        all of which is developed by…half wits…and the fact that jamestooge is endorsing the prodeath proponent of this battle…playing games based on half truths and innuendo…about a legal topic that is based upon lies presented as truth before a court of law…and that courts corrupted acceptance of those same lies…show that he is as much of if not even more than…the half wits where he sources his half truths…

        the presumption that these are “laws” is totally flawed…the statement itself is a conundrum…the fraud committed upon our courts to this point…has successfully carried on…allowing the murder of over 53 million human lives in our nation…based upon absolutely no legislation…the courts have twisted the meaning of life…in order to violate the unalienable right to life…which is guranteed under our constitution…the greatest offense being…they have taken away the right to life from human beings that are incapable of defending that right themselves…from the unborn human being in gestation…assuming without any true scientific bases (except those half truths and omissions presented by men without conscience,those who have a complete disregard for human life)….which is an offense against all men of conscience everywhere…and a breach of faith…with those who they own a inviolable allegiance to… as well as the oath of office each and every justice took…before he/she…was appointed to service under…the United States Constitution…

      • tiredoflibbs November 28, 2011 / 1:49 pm

        jimmy, no matter how many times you repeat your contradictions they will not become true or logical.

        Define “homicide”: The killing of one human being by another human being.


        Human being? Wow, that just throws another wrench in your machinery of liberal spin to justify murder of the unborn. The legal system is what defines one as a double homicide and enforces the “right” of choice for an abortion. Again, you cannot separate the two. The legal system will prosecute for the MURDER of an unborn child and allow the murder of an unborn child in a medical procedure that has been defined as “choice”.

        In order for you to have a double homicide – TWO lives must still be taken. Again, you are trying to say that life exists for condition A and does not exist for condition B. You cannot have both simultaneously. If so, you could have a woman at an abortion clinic, waiting for an abortion and some crazed shooter goes in and kills her. Therefore, using your stupid logic, he could only be charged with a single murder since she decided to end the LIFE of her child through HER CHOICE.

        Here is another newsflash, there is no consensus in the medical field as to when life starts and what is “alive” in the world.

        Also, if you don’t like the accurate labeling of your tactics and behavior go to the other lefty sites where you can regurgitate in the leftist echo chamber and have no fear that your political dogma will not be exposed for the dumbed down talking points that they are.

        Thanks for playing, if you wish to continue grow a spine first.

      • tiredoflibbs November 28, 2011 / 2:19 pm

        Jimmy before you repeat yourself again, your original point that “The fact is that life if the child is not viable outside the womb, then it’s not really alive now is it? ” has been refuted by our legal system.

        You can’t have a homicide without a “human being” being murdered as per the LEGAL definition I supplied before.

      • Chrissy Ann November 30, 2011 / 8:40 am

        Then why do they do surgery on babies in the womb?

        Then why do doctors tell pregnant women when showing them the ultrasound picture, “here is a picture of your baby”?

        Why did God say, “I knew you in the womb?”

        When an egg is fertilized by the sperm it is a baby. You can justify and spin it all you want. That egg and sperm is not going to produce a cabbage.

        A beating heart is life.

      • Majordomo Pain November 30, 2011 / 8:56 am

        What concerns Us is why the “all or none” nature of how abortion is viewed in America. It would seem plainly simple that those who do not believe in the procedure on moral grounds simply not participate. There are religious peoples from across the spectrum that do not ingest alcohol yet alcohol is sold all over America. There are those who do not consume pork yet it is not the subject of groups who wish to see it banned from all American grocery stores. Cigarettes cause cancers and yet those of majority age cannot walk more than 1000 meters without coming to a store that will sell these products to you without warning.

        We, Ourselves have taken note that many conservative Christians fear the implementation of Sharia law in some communities with large population that observe Islam. Seeing that religious doctrine being applied to Christians is anathema to the Right, yet they would do the same to the entire American population via outlawing abortion. How do these two square?

        Even if, taken as many of Our colleagues have in the past that the pro-life movement is really demographically based, because the majority population is shrinking because of interracial marriage and the delay or opting out of having children that more educated women choose is shrinking the potential conservative future base; this decision does not make sense because it is patently impossible to increase the gap in births between your base and the minorities who are out breeding you despite having high rates of abortion as well. The Guttmacher Institute still shows that the plurality of abortions are performed on non-Hispanic white women [36%] vice non Hispanic black [30%] based on the last year of recorded data [2008]. We, Ourselves, understand that if unless the rules are changed drastically, and very soon, with the white American population becoming more liberal in its youth, and the conservatives growing older this disparity in birthrates coupled with the high abortion rate will usher in a minority majority well before 2030. This fight for “the unborn” has nothing to do with religion or the desire to save lives in the end it is a response to the innate fear of your people of being “overrun” that dates back many millennia and may even be genetic.

        Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

  2. neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 10:35 am
    • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 10:37 am
  3. tiredoflibbs November 28, 2011 / 11:11 am

    Neo, that is how liberals justify abortion – redefining life and making it more an argument about choice and barely even bringing LIFE into the discussion.

    That is the argument for late term and partial birth abortions where the child could survive outside the womb in most cases. By not fully bearing the child before killing it is their “out”.

    To liberals it is all about choice and not life. They can’t have it both ways and keep their “right” intact. Notice jimmy uses “choice” in his argument about when it is homicide of a unborn baby if the intent is to carry the baby to term but the same baby is not a victim of homicide if the mother chooses not to carry the baby to term.

    They are mindless drones, what should we expect.

    • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 11:16 am
      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 11:24 am
  4. js03 November 28, 2011 / 11:25 am

    just on the wire;

    Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial-NDAA detention provision would turn America into a “battlefield”

    The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.

    “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,”
    Under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

    The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.(end copy/paste)


    they dont even mention this:
    United States Constitution,
    Bill of Rights

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 11:33 am
      • js03 November 28, 2011 / 11:34 am

        this isnt from obummer…its from mccain…

      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 11:50 am
    • Majordomo Pain November 30, 2011 / 8:34 am

      You need better sources, js03. Here is the text of the Senate version take special note of the definition of “covered persons.”

      (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
      9ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
      10 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
      11 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
      12 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered per-
      13sons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
      14 under the law of war.

      15 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
      16 this section is any person as follows:
      17 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
      18mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
      19 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
      20sible for those attacks.
      21 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
      22 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
      23 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
      24 States or its coalition partners, including any person
      25 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
      VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
      •S 1867 PCS
      1 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
      2 forces.

      3 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-
      4position of a person under the law of war as described
      5 in subsection (a) may include the following:
      6 (1) Detention under the law of war without
      7 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
      8 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
      9 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
      10 States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
      11sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
      12 84)).
      13 (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
      14 competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
      15 (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
      16 person’s country of origin, any other foreign coun-
      try, or any other foreign entity.
      18 (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in
      19tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
      20 or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military
      21 Force.
      23 The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress
      24 regarding the application of the authority described in this
      25 section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
      VerDate Mar 15 2010 01:53 Nov 16, 2011 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1867.PCS S1867 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
      •S 1867 PCS
      1 uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of
      2 subsection (b)(2).

      This will not turn America into a battlefield, it is just Alex Jones trying to round up more people who are too lazy to read who will hit his site and run out to buy more guns.

  5. js03 November 28, 2011 / 11:47 am

    another positive message;

    “Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will announce Monday that he is not seeking re-election, ending a 32-year career in the House.”

    • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 11:52 am
      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 12:33 pm
      • js03 November 28, 2011 / 12:39 pm

        anal cancer…i bet he doesnt tell the whole truth about why….

      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 12:50 pm
      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 12:53 pm
      • neocon1 November 28, 2011 / 1:20 pm
  6. Leo Pusateri November 29, 2011 / 10:40 pm

    Neocon1– you seem to have trouble commenting-

    • neocon1 November 30, 2011 / 7:53 am

      yeah I was a Baaaad boy and was sent to the corner… 🙂

Comments are closed.