The Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary defines a Czar as: "1.) An emperor or king;  one of the former emperors of Russia; 2.) An absolute ruler; despot."  This has never been a term used in The United States of America, a free country and democracy. It has, up until now, been a title of an official within the Communist-rulers of Russia. So why has there not been questions over the use of that Marxist term in America?  Why has no one challenged this?

Not one media outlet has spoken out about this added socialistic term and the citizens themselves are sitting back and letting it happen, seemingly not wanting to be awakened from their dogmatic slumber. I have not heard one citizen even mention this in private conversations. This transformation and takeover of our country is incredible to watch unfold.

That term itself (czar) must be rejected NOW and never used again. By citizens and media using this term matter-of-fact signifies acceptance of this part of the 'change' promised us by Barack Hussein Obama, and helps it all to happen. America must put its foot down once and for all...unless being enslaved is desirable.

Pro-life Democrat leader Bart Stupak, the courageous Congressman from Michigan, has been fighting a gallant many-month battle to have health care reform legislation absolutely guarantee that Americans' tax dollars will not be used for the abominable practice of abortion.  So far, it has been a losing battle.  The vote on Obamacare is expected in the House of Representatives in early November. 

Countless non-partisan authorities have confirmed that the five bills being considered in Congress  --  3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the U.S. Senate, where only on Republican, Olympia Snowe from Maine, voted for only the Obamacare bill coming out of the Senate Finance Committee  --  will allow taxpayer funding for abortions.  Each of these bills are not subject to the Hyde amendment  --  authored by the late Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde  --  which ensured that no abortions, except to save the life of the mother and rape/incest abortions (less than 2% of all abortions) would be funded with tax dollars.  

An awful story out of Pennsylvania gives occasion to think about the illogic of abortion laws in our country and, in this case, how the only difference between homicide and legal activity is the feelings of the would-be mother.

Via LifeNews:

Why do I oppose Obama?

1. As a Christian, I am distressed by Mr. Obama's dedication toward championing abortion, at any term! Mr. Obama refused to sign a bill that would give medical assistance to babies who survived botched abortions, without this bill they simply suffered until they expired. I believe, when people engage in sex, they should understand the risk, STD's and pregnancy to name a couple. You are not forced to have sex, and abortion should not be a convenient birth control method.

2. As a fairly logical and informed American, I understand that terrorist do not want to be friends, they despise our culture and more importantly their countries are in such turmoil, they need a common enemy to bond them. Mr. Obama has done many things to appease them, and they only see that as weakness, and thus still attack us. Due to the President's newly adopted rules of engagement, soldiers are dying out there, and that is heartbreaking.

When a comment is received in response to one of my stories, I ask for permission to publish it. When that is given, I attach it to the story. However, this one was so off the wall in so many ways that it deserves a feature spot since it has a surprise twist ending that I never expected. See if you can guess who the writer is, and where he or she is coming from.

The unsigned email (below) came as a result of my story (published by Capitolhillcoffeehouse.com), "Last Roar of The Lion,"  which detailed the lavish catholic funeral given for Senator Ted Kennedy and questioned why he was given such a Christian honor considering his politics and personal conduct that violated every tenet of the catholic faith and Christianity in general. Shortly after it was published this came in:

---Original Message---
To: chaplainmiles@aol.com
Sent: Sun, Sep 6, 2009 7:31 pm
Subject: last roar of the lion

There is no amount of time that you could have waited to publish your opinions on Kennedy that would be respectful.

I thought that it was very unkind and un-Christian to write a story about anothers faults. Is it OK with you if someone you didn't even know personally writes a story about your sins and puts it on the internet so your family and loved ones can read about it ?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

(UNSIGNED)

The Catholic sitting next to you in Church could be a phony. If they proceed to receive communion they may be calling sacrilege and eternal damnation on their soul. One should know no one is capable of judging what someone's eternal life may be. But with Senator Kennedy and his full Catholic funeral upon his recent death, one has to wonder.

Kennedy's urgent push to pass legislation for abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and same sex-marriage demonstrated his utter contempt for four of five "non-negotiables". Those are, in Catholic doctrine and teaching, intrinsic evils in every case. There are no exceptions.

Despite Obama's claims that health care "reform" opponents were spreading "fabrications" and "bearing false witness" about his plan, even the non-partisan FactCheck.org has weighed in and admitted that currently proposed plans would indeed result in the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.

The truth is that bills now before Congress don't require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it's equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."

Now we'll just sit back and wait for the White House to say FactCheck is "fabricating".

***