Do Some Groups Claiming To Support "Colored People" Actually Harm Them Terribly? 

      There are some American groups claiming to support 'colored people', and that's fine.  In fact, it's great.  But do some of these groups actually do just the opposite, all things considered?  I think so. And don't those groups know it's true? 

  Any such group supporting the interests of 'colored people' or 'black people' must certainly know that about half of the abortions in the United States involve the butchering a black baby, or poisoning it, or otherwise ending its life in the womb of a black woman.  The key point being that about half of all babies aborted in the United States are ethnically considered black, according to data you can find pretty easily if you look up the subject.  So why then do groups claiming to support colored people ever endorse Democrats for political office of any type?

  Since the early 1970's until now, it's been increasingly true that a black baby in the womb of a black mother in the United States was in a statistical slaughterhouse.  In recent years, it would have been better for them to be soldiers trying to storm the beaches of Normandy back in WWII than to try to reach full term inside of their mother.  Statistically. 

  There are political parties in the United States that are opposed to abortion, and there are political parties in the United States that tout baby slaughter (abortion) as a 'woman's right', a 'reproductive option', or a 'choice'.  And such parties work to legally maintain abortion as a valid 'reproductive option'. 

  In my opinion Barak Obama, as a Democratic President, is basically the current champion of the Democratic Party.  He's a Democrat, and he's the President.  And in my opinion that political party is highly prone to characterizing the murder of unborn humans as a 'woman's choice', a 'reproductive choice', or something sanitarily similar.  They call them 'fetuses' and not 'babies', or even 'unborn babies', probably so they won't be openly known to endorse or tolerate killing 'babies' that are not yet born.  In other words, concerning abortion, they support it, they protect it's legality.  So, from that viewpoint, this current President, Barach Obama, is arguably the most prominent protector of pre-born baby killing currently in power in our nation.  So was the last Democratic President, in his time. 

  In my opinion you cannot run for office as a Democrat without being a defacto accessory to the killing of millions upon millions of unborn babies.  It goes with the territory, and for the sake of the power they will have in their hands, Democratic politicians will gladly wade ankle deep in the blood of the unborn (metaphorically), pretending that it is 'choice' that they defend, not the killing of the unborn babies.  

  Will God be fooled by their slippery, vote winning, deniably worded and carefully stated positions on the subject?  They try to make it seem that they support only the convenient availability of abortion but - God forbid - not it's actual practice.  'Let it be safe and available, but rare!', might summarize their position.  I think I've heard some say words like that.

  Well, just how easily available would you favor it being, Mr. Democratic Candidate?  And just how many killings of unborn babies would you cheerfully allow before you quit calling it rare, Mr. Democratic Candidate?  Evil thrives on vaguery and slippery sanitized language.  In fact, it almost can't survive without it.  I don't believe anyone running as a Democrat could harbor any serious internal objections to babies being killed in the womb.  Their's is the banner that those who approve of abortion flock to.  Abortion, and in my opinion, people justifying almost any form of wrongness in such numbers that their vote could be important.  Democrat has come to mean a lot of things, some of them very much spoken against by God in pages of the Bible.  

  What if there was a national law requiring that the word 'abortion' could no longer be used, but instead it had to be referred to as 'killing innocent pre-born babies in the womb'.  Which politician would want to defend the practice then? Who would want to be on film actually admitting that this was what abortion amounted to, yet they still favored it?  But if you use lying words to describe it, then you can pretend you are in favor of a relatively good thing, and not a very evil thing.

   It's not like Democratic politicians are actually wicked people, you see.  They are merely trying to protect the avenues through which certain varieties of wickedness are conducted.  In exchange for votes.  Don't you see the difference?    

  The sad truth is that if Satan should say "I will make you the most powerful leader in the nation if only you will hold up a flag under which the practicers of many types of what God calls evil may gather, there to rebel against God as a group, and to legislatively recharacterize the evils they practice as acceptable rather than abominable" then some would answer Satan's call.  Certain people, hearing the Devil's offer, would become eager for the job, driven by a thirst for the power they imagine themselves wielding and the prominence they suppose would attend their name. 

  How else could you end up with a black President that champions a party (Democrat) which protects abortion 'rights', though nothing kills more blacks than abortion.  Go figure.  But slippery words aside, doesn't every Democratic Presidential candidate make the decision to verbally condone the butchery or killing of who cares how many unborn babies if only, please only, they can attain to that position of high earthly power called the Presidency of the United States?   

  So, consider this:  If the aborted black babies from the last 4 1/2 decades had been allowed to have their lives, grow up, marry, and reproduce families that were usually black as well (some blacks marry whites or latinos, some never marry - same for every race, right?), wouldn't blacks be the largest ethnic group in America now?  Not the largest behind whites, but actually the largest group period?

  The math is complicated, (OK, the math is beyond me) but most of us would probably not be surprised if someone worked it all out and then told us that  'Yes, blacks would be the largest segment of the US population right now if it hadn't been for their populational losses to abortion!'  If you abort about 50% of your babies each year for a pretty good while now and have been doing something leading up to that number since the early 70's or so, it sounds like a possibility.

  If so, if blacks were now the largest segment of the population, there would no longer be 'black issues' - they would be called 'issues'.  There wouldn't be excitement over the election of a black President .......why wouldn't most Presidents be black?  The most Senators would probably be black, and the most congressmen.  There would probably be more black judges than judges of other races.  Most Pastors and Ministers and Priests would probably be black too. 

  So, with baby butchery having prevented 'colored people' (the black portion) from becoming the most dominant segment of the American population (probably - maybe), why do groups posing as 'black advancement organizations' of various types keep empowering the political parties that are so gung-ho for protecting the butchery of black babies (or babies of any race?) primarily meaning the Democrats?  Let's face it, when any group has the majority of all voting power in a system such as the U.S.'s representative democracy, that group's ability to 'advance' itself is pretty potent. 

  And so, does it really help colored people to support organizations that seldom fail to back candidates which are in favor of baby murder?  Why continue to support any organization that so systematically enables this massacre of their own 'colored' innocents?  Why not support anti-abortion candidates?  That is the most direct way to increase the voting power of 'colored people'.  A larger fraction of all 'colored' babies are aborted.  Quit aborting them, and they will grow up to be voters.

  These are little black humans, or little Hispanic humans, or whatever race, built upon God's good design, and fitted with a soul.  And one day they would not only be 'colored' citizens, but in time, 'colored' adult voters.  And more importantly, they could all have a chance to become 'colored' Christians - if Christians still retain a racial designation. 

  Can an organization claiming to have the best interests of colored people truly be a strong protector of the right to slaughter pre-born colored people? 

  What if there was a political or social advancement organization which claimed it had the interests of 'colored' people in mind, and it's motto was:  "Colored people: The fewer of us the better!"  Would you, as a 'colored' person, be fooled into voting them into power? 

  Some people, even some Christians, say that they are against abortion, but vote Democrat because of other planks of the Democratic platform.   Here's a hypothetical situation for them to consider:

  Suppose, at Sunday school, the Christian teens of a certain church were told that today they would be engaging in an activity to prepare them for when they were voters.  They were told that they had to join one of two imaginary political parties.

  Political party 'A' is for people who believe in helping the aged, spreading the gospel, and sending money to the needy in faraway places.

  Political party 'B' is for people who believe in assisting with prison ministries, praying for the sick at hospitals, and throwing rocks through random church windows.

  If the Christian students at Sunday school took this activity seriously, and had to join one of these two clubs, and then explain to the Pastor why they did so, could you imagine any of them preferring group 'B'?  How could they justify the part about throwing rocks through Church windows?

  They might say "Well Pastor, I think I'd be better at prison ministry and praying for the sick than I would be at helping the aged, spreading the gospel, and sending money to the needy in faraway places.  So I picked 'B'."

  Pastor might say "But your group throws rocks through church windows, so how can you still claim to be a Christian?  Those are God's windows!!  How could you choose to be in that group?"

  And the teenager might answer "Yes, Pastor, I know I'm siding with the group that does that, but I joined for the other things.  But when I walk down the street with them while they throw the rocks, I promise I won't throw any myself."

  Should the Pastor be satisfied with that?  So now remember how we will all be judged by Jesus, who is even more truly our Pastor than our church's Pastor is.  Will you be able to tell Him that you joined with the Democrats despite abortion, or gay marriage, etc., and not because of them?  Will he accept such a viewpoint? 

Well, think about which groups are supporting abortion, and how abortion in the US mostly kills colored babies.  How does it make sense for 'colored' people to vote against their own expansion as a segment of the total voting population?  If you vote for the pro-abortion parties, you currently vote against the advancement of colored people in a very direct sense.  There are a lot of other considerations you can talk about, but as far as increasing the real and actual political power of 'colored' people, nothing would make more of a difference than if 'colored people' had the most voting power.  It really is that simple, isn't it?

  I have one great-grandmother that some of the family said was half Black, and half Cherokee.  She died before my birth, so I never met her.  But if so, I like that, because I feel more broadly American inside.  I consider myself a Caucasian, though, because I'm mostly English and Scotch-Irish otherwise, via the lineage I'm more certain of.  But, the citizenship of all Christians and their highest allegiance is to the Kingdom of God - so we avow, and so we are called to live.

  I'm writing about this subject because I think that any mental reasoning, worldly or spiritual, which causes us to quit aborting our unborn babies should be given as much consideration as possible.  I think God truly must be very very angry with us as a nation concerning the casual way we abort our young humans that He sends our way.  They may too often be babies from fornication, which is also to our shame, but haven't we all realized what wonderful people those babies can grow up to become?  They were created with God's care and attention to detail, the same as other babies.   And I hear many Pastors and Ministors and Priests preaching in favor of marriage and family and virginity these days.  That's such a welcome sound.  They have more influence than they know, I think, in planting the truth, and in reawakening the consciences of us who are terrible sinners.  

  The more you read the Bible, the more you get a picture of a Father and a Son, and a Holy Spirit that would not be tolerant towards the murder of unborn babies.  If you've already been involved in an abortion, and regret it, then you can repent to Jesus and don't do it again.  It's not listed as a sin that Jesus lacks the power to forgive.  In fact, it's a sin not specifically discussed in the Bible by name, that I recall.  But it kills a human, so you know it falls under 'thou shalt not kill', so it's a sin.  Even if you argue that God once told the Israelites to war upon the Canaanites, it's hard to make the case that God ever told anyone anywhere to war against their own unborn babies.  All humans are made in God's image.

  If you persist in aborting or supporting abortion....should you expect good things for yourself concerning that on your judgement day? 

 And work as you can to end the practice of and need for abortion if you can see it ought to end.  We certainly must be able to provide better solutions to the mothers of an unwanted baby.  We must try to reduce the sexual sinning (I stand guilty as a former fornicator, but it happened to never lead to a pregnancy) that is what usually leads to unwanted pregnancies / babies.  Many people and groups have been working hard towards this end, but the problem is daunting in size, and will take great Christian effort to relieve.