Yep....Campaign Obama and President Obama just can't seem to agree...on ANYTHING...even his staff is having trouble choosing sides.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gregg Cunningham Rebuts Liberal News Reporter, Offended to be Called "Pro-Abortion"
Bravo to Gregg Cunningham, Founder & National Director, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, for cutting through the liberal word games, viciously played to promote their baby-killing agenda.
"When abortion is hidden abortion is tolerated, when abortion is seen everything changes. CBR exists to make abortion impossible to ignore or trivialize...until people are bothered enough to stop the killing."
(Via CBR Blog)
From: Rachel L. Solomon [mailto:rachel.l.solomon@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:45 PM
To: Gregg Cunningham
Subject: Regarding “pro-abortion”
Dear CBR,
My name is Rachel Solomon and I am a student at the University of Washington and a reporter for The Daily, the school’s student newspaper. The Genocide Awareness Project visited our campus this week and I reported on it. I do not wish to comment on the graphic images on display, as my own views are quite contrary to the ones expressed - a fact that, I might add, did not come into play in my unbiased news reporting. Instead, I would like to comment on your groups use of the term “pro-abortion” to describe those who are not “pro-life.”
The activists who oppose GAP and the pro-life movement are not pro-abortion; they are instead accurately described as possessing the opinions of “pro-choice” or “abortion rights.” “Pro-abortion” is a horrible misnomer that implies that these people push for abortions as the only way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Rather, the reality is that this side often views abortion as a last resort. No one advocates FOR abortions. They advocate for THE OPTION to have an abortion.
I would greatly appreciate it if, in the future, you would correctly describe those who hold differing viewpoints from your own. Thank you very much.
Rachel
Reply Letter from Mr. Cunningham:
Dear Ms. Solomon,
Thank you for your note and for your fairly balanced coverage of our Genocide Awareness Project at The University of Washington. My only criticism of your reportage is that you chose to suppress the facts surrounding our dispute with the administration over the location of our display site. School officials wanted to push us into a much more obscure corner of Red Square and only relented after we retained legal counsel and threatened a lawsuit in writing. Those are newsworthy events which your readership will now never know.
But in addition to that indiscretion, I must also take issue with your assertion that our characterization of the pro-abortion position on abortion as “pro-abortion,” is a “misnomer.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Your accusation is intellectually dishonest. Imagine a Nazi having the effrontery to say “I’m not pro-Holocaust, I just don’t think it should be against the law to kill Jews.” Or try “I am not pro-rape, I think sexual assaults against women should only be legal when men commit them as a last resort.” Or “I am not pro-slavery, I merely believe whites should have the OPTION to enslave blacks. At various times and in various places, Jews and women and African Americans were widely viewed as sub-human and were consequently denied rights of personhood. In fact there are still plenty of countries in which it is effectively legal to kill Jews, rape women and enslave blacks.
People who support the right to kill a baby are understandably embarrassed by that fact so they seek to conceal the truth with the same crude, word games played by Southerners who said they didn’t advocate slavery, they advocated States’ Rights. To this day, historical revisionists deny that the Civil War had anything to do with slavery. But the truth is that when a Klansman uses the term “States’ Rights,” he means the rights of states to legalize slavery.
You may play head games with your liberal classmates, Ms. Solomon, but not with us. If you think it should be legal to kill babies, you are pro-baby-killing.
Again, thank you for relatively fair coverage of our project.
Lord bless,
Gregg Cunningham
CBR
19 Pro-Life Democrats Driven to Protect the Preborn Tell Pelosi: We Will Not Support a Healthcare Reform Proposal that Includes Abortion
(CNSNews.com) – Nineteen pro-life House Democrats signed a letter last week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing their opposition to any health care reform that includes abortion funding.
“We cannot support any health-care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan,” the letter read.
The congressmen did not take a position for or against the so-called “public option” feature of the health care reform bill, which involves the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance poll, but the congressmen were blunt about what they do not want.
“Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable,” they wrote.
“We want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of benefits package,” the letter further stipulated. “Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care.”
“Nineteen Democrats breaking the fold is a sign that not everybody within the Democratic Party is completely sold out to the abortion lobby,” Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States, told CNSNews.com.
The fact is, taxpayer dollars are already going towards programs that fund abortion, Kenney said.
“Planned Parenthood alone consumes about $349 million a year in federal and state tax subsidies,” he added.
According to a report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, state policies restrict insurance coverage of abortion in only a few states.
“A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge,” the report said.
Kenney told CNSNews.com that an amendment to prevent any and all taxpayer money going towards abortion and abortion-related programs would be a “rational next step” and “entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed in the letter.”
Either way, Kenney expressed optimism no matter the speaker’s reaction to the letter.
“What this ultimately is, is the spark, and whether or not Speaker Pelosi listens to them, it certainly is going to encourage the conversation as to whether or not the principles of social justice ultimately coincide with the principles of the abortion lobby,” he added.
The letter was signed by the following Reps:
Dan Boran (D-Okla.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Colin Peterson (D-Minn..), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Mike Mclntyre (D-N.C.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.).
“We cannot support any health-care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan,” the letter read.
The congressmen did not take a position for or against the so-called “public option” feature of the health care reform bill, which involves the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance poll, but the congressmen were blunt about what they do not want.
“Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable,” they wrote.
“We want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of benefits package,” the letter further stipulated. “Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care.”
“Nineteen Democrats breaking the fold is a sign that not everybody within the Democratic Party is completely sold out to the abortion lobby,” Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States, told CNSNews.com.
The fact is, taxpayer dollars are already going towards programs that fund abortion, Kenney said.
“Planned Parenthood alone consumes about $349 million a year in federal and state tax subsidies,” he added.
According to a report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, state policies restrict insurance coverage of abortion in only a few states.
“A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge,” the report said.
Kenney told CNSNews.com that an amendment to prevent any and all taxpayer money going towards abortion and abortion-related programs would be a “rational next step” and “entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed in the letter.”
Either way, Kenney expressed optimism no matter the speaker’s reaction to the letter.
“What this ultimately is, is the spark, and whether or not Speaker Pelosi listens to them, it certainly is going to encourage the conversation as to whether or not the principles of social justice ultimately coincide with the principles of the abortion lobby,” he added.
The letter was signed by the following Reps:
Dan Boran (D-Okla.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Colin Peterson (D-Minn..), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Mike Mclntyre (D-N.C.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.).
Monday, June 29, 2009
Elementary School Exposes Children to Perversion; Chicago Tribune First Reports, then, Covers Up School Involvement
Photo:Nettelhorst Elementary School parent Amy Goodman prepares a wagon for the 40th annual Pride Parade with daughter Sadie Blade, 3, while son Ben Blade, 6, plays in their home.
(Tribune photo by Phil Velasquez / June 24, 2009)
"The black metal fence in front of Nettelhorst Elementary School is obscured by thousands of strips of dyed fabric -- yellows giving way to greens, then blues, purples and reds -- each one tied on by the small hands of a student.
The ruffled, waist-high rainbow is a symbol of the school's solidarity with its east Lakeview community, and a sign hanging by the gate trumpets that Nettelhorst this year "will be the first Chicago public school to march in the city's gay pride parade."
'We believe family means everybody,' the sign reads,"
reported the Chicago Tribune June 25, 2009 in their article Titled:
Chicago School to March in Pride Parade
After getting wind of this article, OneNewsNow tried contacting the Nettlehorst Elementary School principle, Cindy Wulbert, to request an interview.
"The school does not endorse the gay pride parade; neither is it participating in the event," said the voice on the other end of the phone--relaying that the principle was "unavailable."
She also told OneNewsNow that some of the parents of students were participating in the event with their children but that, again, the school is not supporting that effort. When asked about the strips of fabric, "they do not exist," she lied to OneNewsNow.
Well, low and behold, the school did in fact endorse, promote, & "float" in the depraved event yesterday.
Contrary to their original article from June 25, today (June 29), The Chicago Tribune duplicitously writes,
"For the first time, a coalition of parents -- gay, straight and lesbian -- from a Chicago public school. Nettelhorst Elementary School parents marched near the front of the parade, leaving behind a wave of bubbles. One kid-filled wagon was topped with a sign that read:
"School is out and so are my dads."
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
However, the Chicago Sun truthfully reports, "Nettelhorst Elementary School were the first grade school to march."
"How depraved does the behavior have to become to which our public schools expose children," asks Laurie Higgins of The Illinois Family Institute, who also got nowhere when she called the school to inquire, "if the small children had tied the thousands of strips on the fence during school time."
"Have Nettlehorst administrators and teachers read, studied, and thought deeply about the nature and morality of homosexuality? No public school educator in their professional capacity has any right to espouse, affirm, endorse, promote, or support either explicitly or implicitly any position on the nature and morality of homosexuality. To espouse, affirm, endorse, promote, or support any position on the nature and morality of homosexuality stands way outside the purview of their jobs and way outside their professional expertise," says Ms. Higgins.
Having been to a "gay pride" parade, I have witnessed with my own eyes precisely what goes on: Public nudity, flamboyant sexual acts, and just flat out perversion. Oh yes, they like to use this public opportunity to show just how "out & proud" they are, no matter who the audience.
Unquestionably, it is NOT the place to bring young children to promote the "gay" agenda. The Parents, teachers and all involved in this scandalous decision ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves.
The exploitation of public education to promote & endorse such behavior is twisted & sick. Consider this a "crystal ball" experience--a glimpse of what's to come in the very near future to public schools near you.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
"People will look back on the gruesome practice of dismembering a partly born child, crushing its skull. And they will shudder," says Va. Judge
Richmond, Va., Jun 26, 2009 / 03:23 am (CNA).- The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 6-5 decision on Wednesday upheld Virginia’s partial-birth abortion ban. In his concurring opinion, one judge wrote that the law protects the “weakest” and “most helpless” and condemned the use of the Constitution to justify “dismembering” a partly born child and “crushing” its skull.
In its ruling “Richmond Medical Center v. Herring,” the court said the 2003 Virginia law does not unduly burden a woman’s legal right to terminate a pregnancy by more conventional means. It also ruled the law is clear about the type of procedure banned and adequately protects women’s health.
The decision reverses a May 2008 2-1 panel decision which struck down the law, which is similar to a federal statute prohibiting a procedure in which the baby is partially delivered and then killed.
According to the Alliance Defense Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Fourth Circuit panel to revisit its original September 2007 decision that the ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had upheld a partial-birth abortion ban in the case “Carhart v. Gonzales.”
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer authored the majority opinion in Wednesday’s decision, which won the concurrence of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III.
"A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection," Judge Wilkinson wrote.
“The fact is that we--civilized people—are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull,” his opinion continued. “Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.”
According to the Associated Press, Judge M. Blane Michael in a dissenting opinion said the law was unconstitutional because it imposes criminal liability on any doctor who intends to perform a “standard D&E” that “by accident becomes an intact D&E.”
Opponents of the law unsuccessfully argued it was unconstitutional on the grounds the procedure was too broadly defined it would prohibit the most common form of second-trimester abortion, known as a “dilation and extraction.”
In medical terminology, a partial-birth abortion is described as an “intact” dilation and extraction.
“To hold the Virginia Act facially unconstitutional for all circumstances based on the possible rare circumstance presented... is not appropriate under any standard for facial challenges,” the Fourth Circuit’s Wednesday decision read.
It added that the law provides “sufficient clarity” about prohibited conduct to enable a doctor of “reasonable intelligence” to avoid criminal liability.
Violation of the law is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.
All six judges who upheld the law were appointed by Republican presidents while the five dissenters were Democratic appointees.
Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel for the pro-life Alliance Defense Fund, said the initial ruling of the three-judge panel “conflicted significantly” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.
“No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life is worthless. Virginia has legitimately chosen to protect innocent life from a terrible procedure, and the court was right to uphold Virginia’s law,” he added.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Editors of Catholic "America" Magazine Railroad Pro-Lifers and Bishops while Jesuits Drive the Train
Related Stories:
Jesuit Educators Back Obama Notre Dame Invitation
Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers
I found the following story on "The Catholic Key Blog":
Jesuit America Magazine Calumny in Service of a Human Master
A number of recent editorials by Catholic Obama partisans have sought to discredit the U.S. Bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole by grossly misappropriating the words of Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.
Sometimes with attribution, sometimes without, but never in context, they have ripped four words, “We are at war,” from a 3,981 word address Bishop Finn made to a pro-life convention April 18, and given it meaning and context of their own making.
None have been so egregious as the Jesuit editors of America. This week’s Current Comment editorial in America disgraces the paper and the Society. It is vicious calumny in service to wicked ends.
Here it is:
A Higher Righteousness
Over the course of his career, George Tiller, M.D., performed over 60,000 abortions, specializing in what are euphemistically called “late-term” abortions. His murder at Wichita’s Reformation Lutheran Church on Sunday, May 31, has sparked soul-searching among some pro-life advocates. Did incendiary speech against brazen abortionists contribute to an overheated environment that then led to the doctor’s murder? Was Scott Roeder, the unstable man who allegedly killed Tiller, egged on by “hate speech”? What moral responsibility do activists and church leaders bear to prevent moral and political criticism on both sides of the abortion divide from escalating into hate speech?
It is not hard to find examples of incendiary speech. Tiller’s critics were wont to step up to the line of incitement and then draw back. Bill O’Reilly regularly called the Kansas doctor “Tiller the baby killer” and devoted 29 segments of his Fox television show to vilifying him. “If I could get my hands on Tiller...” he threatened. “Well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes.... It doesn’t get worse. Does it get worse? No.” Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City is now best known for his proclamation to the Gospel of Life Convention in April: “We are at war!” Though the bishop went on to explain that the struggle is a spiritual one and the means nonviolent, he announced an apocalyptic struggle against evil “that may rival any in time past.”
Defenders of life must recall the warning of the Sermon on the Mount: “If a man calls his brother ‘Fool,’ he will answer for it...; and if he calls him ‘Renegade,’ he will answer for it in hell fire.” For the Gospel of Life to be good news, it must reflect a higher righteousness.
Of course, in the convoluted (nuanced) style America’s editors are adept at, there is enough plausible deniability built into their argument to render the piece content-free on defense.
But the message is clear – Bishop Finn’s comments are to be identified with O’Reilly’s, and whether or not they are responsible for Tiller’s murder, they and all pro-life people who speak forcefully in defense of life will find themselves in hell.
So what’s wrong with that?
1. Bishop Finn did not even remotely refer to Dr. Tiller in his talk at the Gospel of Life Convention. He did not say “We are at war with Dr. Tiller” or any other abortionist, but rather with “Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises.” A week after Easter, when the talk was given, Catholics might have recognized these words from the renewal of Baptismal Promises. This war the Bishop said, “is ultimately a spiritual battle for the eternal salvation of souls – our own and those of other people.” And further, in the conduct of this spiritual battle “We are not engaged in physical battles in the same way military soldiers defend with material weapons. We need not – we must not – initiate violence against other persons to accomplish something good, even something as significant as the protection of human life.”
2. Bishop Finn’s talk was a challenge to committed people who defend life through charitable and political activity: “peacefully, prayerfully, and legally.” It stood as a warning to those people to get their own spiritual house in order in the still authentic Catholic tradition of recognizing the true nature of what we fight against. The Bishop’s stated reference point was St. Paul who teaches “Put on the armor of God, in order that you can stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For, our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the rulers of this darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (Eph 6:10-12).
3. Bishop Finn has never publicly addressed the subject of Dr. Tiller.
4. Even assuming the editors’ ridiculous use of the Sermon on the Mount, Bishop Finn did not call any of his brothers fools or renegades.
5. Whatever monsters inhabit the mind of the disturbed protestant Scott Roeder, traditional Catholic notions of the divisions of the Church Militant or the Communion of Saints are certainly not among them.
6. There is nothing “incendiary” about Bishop Finn’s words in the context in which he used them. They can only be interpreted as incendiary in the false context that has been manufactured by numerous Catholic Obama partisans, including the Jesuit editors at America.
So why would the editors at America, NCR, and Commonweal, who all got on this anti-bishop bandwagon, attempt to associate Bishop Finn and by extension other outspoken bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole with murder and truly incendiary speech and threats? Why would they seek to make those who have consistently at personal cost defended human life, the enemies of life?
Is it because the ultimate strategy for them to “Sing a New Church Into Being,” is to alienate the Faithful from their Shepherds? Is it because the defenders of life have criticized their master? They will muster any excuse for him, praise him immodestly for actions he has not taken, and destroy the reputations of any who dissent from him.
That is not the way a Christian works for the Risen Lord. But their master is not Risen. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And serving a man this way is idolatry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a Sidenote:
I visited the Jesuit-run "America" Magazine Website this morning, and what did I find? A headline article by self-proclaimed "Pro-Life" "Catholic" Obama supporter, Douglas Kmiec, titled: Embryonic Confusion. Arrogantly, he boasted about his public attempt to convince Pro-Life leaders, Princeton Professor Robert George and former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, to explore the "common ground on life issues with the Obama administration." Then, he contradicted himself by saying, "I fully accept the Catholic teaching.." Hopefully, "America" will be next on the Archbishop Burke chastisement list. They are just digging their own graves. I know St. Ignatius must be rolling in his!
Reporting this scandalous information is not at all easy for me. I was practically raised by Jesuits. My uncle is a Jesuit, and I graduated from a Jesuit University. So, I guess you can say, I have first hand experiences. The memories are bittersweet.
For the longest time, I was unaware that I was under the influence of the deceptively toxic drugs known as "Moral Relativism," "Liberalism," and "Ignorance," furtively distributed by many Jesuits under the guises of "freedom," "tolerance," and "diversity," at their Universities across the country.
I have spent the past couple of years "detoxing."
Thanks be to God, my ex-husband, some awesome friends (thanks Deb S. and the nuns at Casa Maria!), EWTN, and Fox News, my eyes have been opened to the TRUTH. (Yes, you read that correctly, my ex-husband. He played a MAJOR role in opening my eyes to the truth, and I am utterly grateful to him for that. Thank you, Mark! ;-)
It has been a daunting, debilitating task, to say the least. Yet, there are times I find myself pining for those blissful hallucinogens.
"Just one more time. I won't get hooked again," I think to myself, especially when I have to cross paths with the "dealers" from time to time. And then, there are other times....
Like when I heard about some Jesuits from my alma mater convincing students to vote for Obama. Hearing such news did not surprised me at all. Rather, I found myself disheartened by the passivity of those Jesuits who disagreed with what was happening, yet did nothing to stop it.
While I know a few Jesuits who live their lives dedicated to the Gospels and who are obedient to the Pope, the way St. Ignatius intended, they are among the minority, certainly not enough to sustain the order. You'd be hard-pressed these days to find Jesuits with the moral backbone of St. Ignatius Loyola, their founder, or fellow Jesuits: Edmund Campion, Isaac Jogues, Rupert Mayer, or Miguel Pro.
For these men gave their very lives for the faith, unlike most Jesuits today who are insatiably addicted to the drug of prestige and the things of this world;
bringing to mind a very important passage in the Bible,
Then he called the crowd along to him along with his disciples and said, “If anyone would come after me, they must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can a person give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes into his father’s glory with the holy angels. (Mark 8:34-38)
A few months back, my Jesuit uncle said to me, "If you keep acting like this (referring to my outspoken passion for the Catholic faith), you will find yourself with no friends, alone in a corner with...(and he named the "few" Jesuits that I was referring to earlier in this post.)
A few weeks after he made that comment, I had the opportunity to say to him, "Ya know, there's a spot open for you at that corner table if you change your mind."
As we embark upon the year of the Priest, let us keep the Jesuits close in prayer!
God Bless, ~Georgia
Jesuit Educators Back Obama Notre Dame Invitation
Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers
I found the following story on "The Catholic Key Blog":
Jesuit America Magazine Calumny in Service of a Human Master
A number of recent editorials by Catholic Obama partisans have sought to discredit the U.S. Bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole by grossly misappropriating the words of Kansas City – St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn.
Sometimes with attribution, sometimes without, but never in context, they have ripped four words, “We are at war,” from a 3,981 word address Bishop Finn made to a pro-life convention April 18, and given it meaning and context of their own making.
None have been so egregious as the Jesuit editors of America. This week’s Current Comment editorial in America disgraces the paper and the Society. It is vicious calumny in service to wicked ends.
Here it is:
A Higher Righteousness
Over the course of his career, George Tiller, M.D., performed over 60,000 abortions, specializing in what are euphemistically called “late-term” abortions. His murder at Wichita’s Reformation Lutheran Church on Sunday, May 31, has sparked soul-searching among some pro-life advocates. Did incendiary speech against brazen abortionists contribute to an overheated environment that then led to the doctor’s murder? Was Scott Roeder, the unstable man who allegedly killed Tiller, egged on by “hate speech”? What moral responsibility do activists and church leaders bear to prevent moral and political criticism on both sides of the abortion divide from escalating into hate speech?
It is not hard to find examples of incendiary speech. Tiller’s critics were wont to step up to the line of incitement and then draw back. Bill O’Reilly regularly called the Kansas doctor “Tiller the baby killer” and devoted 29 segments of his Fox television show to vilifying him. “If I could get my hands on Tiller...” he threatened. “Well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes.... It doesn’t get worse. Does it get worse? No.” Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City is now best known for his proclamation to the Gospel of Life Convention in April: “We are at war!” Though the bishop went on to explain that the struggle is a spiritual one and the means nonviolent, he announced an apocalyptic struggle against evil “that may rival any in time past.”
Defenders of life must recall the warning of the Sermon on the Mount: “If a man calls his brother ‘Fool,’ he will answer for it...; and if he calls him ‘Renegade,’ he will answer for it in hell fire.” For the Gospel of Life to be good news, it must reflect a higher righteousness.
Of course, in the convoluted (nuanced) style America’s editors are adept at, there is enough plausible deniability built into their argument to render the piece content-free on defense.
But the message is clear – Bishop Finn’s comments are to be identified with O’Reilly’s, and whether or not they are responsible for Tiller’s murder, they and all pro-life people who speak forcefully in defense of life will find themselves in hell.
So what’s wrong with that?
1. Bishop Finn did not even remotely refer to Dr. Tiller in his talk at the Gospel of Life Convention. He did not say “We are at war with Dr. Tiller” or any other abortionist, but rather with “Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises.” A week after Easter, when the talk was given, Catholics might have recognized these words from the renewal of Baptismal Promises. This war the Bishop said, “is ultimately a spiritual battle for the eternal salvation of souls – our own and those of other people.” And further, in the conduct of this spiritual battle “We are not engaged in physical battles in the same way military soldiers defend with material weapons. We need not – we must not – initiate violence against other persons to accomplish something good, even something as significant as the protection of human life.”
2. Bishop Finn’s talk was a challenge to committed people who defend life through charitable and political activity: “peacefully, prayerfully, and legally.” It stood as a warning to those people to get their own spiritual house in order in the still authentic Catholic tradition of recognizing the true nature of what we fight against. The Bishop’s stated reference point was St. Paul who teaches “Put on the armor of God, in order that you can stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For, our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the rulers of this darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” (Eph 6:10-12).
3. Bishop Finn has never publicly addressed the subject of Dr. Tiller.
4. Even assuming the editors’ ridiculous use of the Sermon on the Mount, Bishop Finn did not call any of his brothers fools or renegades.
5. Whatever monsters inhabit the mind of the disturbed protestant Scott Roeder, traditional Catholic notions of the divisions of the Church Militant or the Communion of Saints are certainly not among them.
6. There is nothing “incendiary” about Bishop Finn’s words in the context in which he used them. They can only be interpreted as incendiary in the false context that has been manufactured by numerous Catholic Obama partisans, including the Jesuit editors at America.
So why would the editors at America, NCR, and Commonweal, who all got on this anti-bishop bandwagon, attempt to associate Bishop Finn and by extension other outspoken bishops and the pro-life movement as a whole with murder and truly incendiary speech and threats? Why would they seek to make those who have consistently at personal cost defended human life, the enemies of life?
Is it because the ultimate strategy for them to “Sing a New Church Into Being,” is to alienate the Faithful from their Shepherds? Is it because the defenders of life have criticized their master? They will muster any excuse for him, praise him immodestly for actions he has not taken, and destroy the reputations of any who dissent from him.
That is not the way a Christian works for the Risen Lord. But their master is not Risen. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And serving a man this way is idolatry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a Sidenote:
I visited the Jesuit-run "America" Magazine Website this morning, and what did I find? A headline article by self-proclaimed "Pro-Life" "Catholic" Obama supporter, Douglas Kmiec, titled: Embryonic Confusion. Arrogantly, he boasted about his public attempt to convince Pro-Life leaders, Princeton Professor Robert George and former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, to explore the "common ground on life issues with the Obama administration." Then, he contradicted himself by saying, "I fully accept the Catholic teaching.." Hopefully, "America" will be next on the Archbishop Burke chastisement list. They are just digging their own graves. I know St. Ignatius must be rolling in his!
Reporting this scandalous information is not at all easy for me. I was practically raised by Jesuits. My uncle is a Jesuit, and I graduated from a Jesuit University. So, I guess you can say, I have first hand experiences. The memories are bittersweet.
For the longest time, I was unaware that I was under the influence of the deceptively toxic drugs known as "Moral Relativism," "Liberalism," and "Ignorance," furtively distributed by many Jesuits under the guises of "freedom," "tolerance," and "diversity," at their Universities across the country.
I have spent the past couple of years "detoxing."
Thanks be to God, my ex-husband, some awesome friends (thanks Deb S. and the nuns at Casa Maria!), EWTN, and Fox News, my eyes have been opened to the TRUTH. (Yes, you read that correctly, my ex-husband. He played a MAJOR role in opening my eyes to the truth, and I am utterly grateful to him for that. Thank you, Mark! ;-)
It has been a daunting, debilitating task, to say the least. Yet, there are times I find myself pining for those blissful hallucinogens.
"Just one more time. I won't get hooked again," I think to myself, especially when I have to cross paths with the "dealers" from time to time. And then, there are other times....
Like when I heard about some Jesuits from my alma mater convincing students to vote for Obama. Hearing such news did not surprised me at all. Rather, I found myself disheartened by the passivity of those Jesuits who disagreed with what was happening, yet did nothing to stop it.
While I know a few Jesuits who live their lives dedicated to the Gospels and who are obedient to the Pope, the way St. Ignatius intended, they are among the minority, certainly not enough to sustain the order. You'd be hard-pressed these days to find Jesuits with the moral backbone of St. Ignatius Loyola, their founder, or fellow Jesuits: Edmund Campion, Isaac Jogues, Rupert Mayer, or Miguel Pro.
For these men gave their very lives for the faith, unlike most Jesuits today who are insatiably addicted to the drug of prestige and the things of this world;
bringing to mind a very important passage in the Bible,
Then he called the crowd along to him along with his disciples and said, “If anyone would come after me, they must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can a person give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes into his father’s glory with the holy angels. (Mark 8:34-38)
A few months back, my Jesuit uncle said to me, "If you keep acting like this (referring to my outspoken passion for the Catholic faith), you will find yourself with no friends, alone in a corner with...(and he named the "few" Jesuits that I was referring to earlier in this post.)
A few weeks after he made that comment, I had the opportunity to say to him, "Ya know, there's a spot open for you at that corner table if you change your mind."
As we embark upon the year of the Priest, let us keep the Jesuits close in prayer!
God Bless, ~Georgia
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Chris Smith(R-NJ) to Pro-Life Advocates: You are the Conscience of a Nation that has Lost Its Way
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina, June 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While the situation may look bleak for the pro-life movement, one Congressman has stated that the current time of crisis for pro-life advocates may actually be recorded in history as their "finest hour."
"You are the conscience of a nation that has lost its way," said Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) in a keynote address at the 37th convention of the National Right to Life Committee last weekend.
Smith, one of the most outspoken defenders of the right to life in Congress, praised the delegates gathered for their unflagging efforts to "admonish our country to embrace life and hope." He thanked them for "devoting your lives, your talent, your time and your money to defending generations of unborn children, their moms, their dads, the frail elderly and the disabled (like Terri Schiavo), most of whom you will never meet, at least not in this life."
The Congressman then turned to address what he called the "string of setbacks" suffered by the pro-life movement in the five short months of the administration of President Barack Obama.
"With all his gifts and charisma, it is tragic beyond words that Mr. Obama has chosen to promote the culture of death, and in record time has made the White House the wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion lobby," Smith said.
But despite the adversity faced by the pro-life cause and the promise of worse to come, Smith exhorted the delegates to "resolve to stop his misguided abortion agenda."
"This can and must be our finest hour," Smith declared, evoking the immortal words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who rallied the British people to brace themselves on the eve of the Battle of Britain to resist the indomitable forces of Nazi Germany. In that "finest hour" speech, Churchill told the British people that upon them "depends the survival of Christian civilization." The 69th anniversary of that speech, given June 18, 1940, had passed just two days before Smith's keynote address.
"At precisely the same time as President Obama continues to assiduously assure Americans, including graduates at Notre Dame last month, that he wants to reduce abortion at home and abroad, his administration is aggressively seeking to reverse virtually every modest pro-life law ever enacted or policy promulgated since Roe v. Wade," said Smith.
Smith explained that aggressive efforts to promote abortion were proceeding rapidly through the repeal of pro-life policies and laws, the refusal to renew funding for pro-life legislative riders, key personnel appointments, funding and lobbying abortion abroad, and restructuring health care to shore up a failing abortion industry.
"Personnel is policy," Smith observed, pointing to two examples that illustrate the extreme pro-abortion character of the administration: Dawn Johnson, a former NARAL lawyer, who called pregnant women "fetal containers," and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who praised the work of eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, saying her leadership was "one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race and that Sanger's work both here and abroad was not done."
Smith stated that he asked Clinton how she could be in "awe" of Sanger, a racist, enemy of the poor, and population control advocate, who stated, "the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it," and who called maternal health care for poor pregnant women both "nearsighted" and "stupid cruelty."
Smith recounted that Clinton also expressed candidly to him that the term "reproductive health" included abortion and that the Obama administration was "entitled" to advocate abortion all over the world.
"Thus it is abundantly clear a new, dark chapter in the Global push for unfettered abortion has commenced," stated Smith pointing to statements from US representatives to the UN that the federal government would now strive to achieve "universal access to reproductive health and the promotion of reproductive rights."
Smith pointed to the plight of women in China, saying that thanks to Obama's decision to donate $50 million to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the US will begin supporting one of "the most pervasive crimes against women in human history."
"China's one-child-per-couple policy relies on coerced abortion, involuntary sterilization, ruinous fines in amounts up to ten times the salary of both parents, imprisonment, and job loss or demotion to achieve its quotes," said Smith, who also observed that these efforts were being achieved with the direct complicity of UNFPA.
"Population control blames children for bad governance and the misuse and misallocation of resources," warned Smith. "If you want to know where that worldview takes us, just look at China."
In the United States, Smith said, the upcoming battle over universal health care will also become a battle to resist the imposition of taxpayer funded abortions and the forcing of physicians to perform abortions they are otherwise reluctant to provide. Smith said that under the current legislation shaping up under the Obama/Kennedy health care plan, a presidential advisory council will determine what services will be mandated under the new law, and, without any legislative guarantees, it will most certainly include abortion.
"We know that if the children and at risk persons in America and the world are to survive the newest aggression against their lives, you and I have no other option but to fight," said Smith, explaining that efforts must be redoubled and new activists recruited, especially among the young, both in the United States and overseas.
"This is no time for quitters or the faint of heart," concluded Smith.
"I truly believe that this will someday be regarded as our finest hour, when against overwhelming odds, we stood firm and overcame evil with good."
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
PBS Wages War on Pro-Lifers
By L. Brent Bozell III, CNSNews.com
June 23, 2009-The Public Broadcasting Service recently announced it will not allow new religious programming on their taxpayer-subsidized airwaves. The handful of stations that have shown a Catholic Mass or Mormon devotions will be allowed to continue, but the other 300-plus stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of evangelism.
Welcome to Barack Obama’s new world order.
News reports explained that the PBS station services committee insisted on applying a 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian."
To everyone who’s watched a pledge drive or contemplated a toy store stuffed with "Sesame Street" toys, the idea that PBS is following any "noncommercial" policy is absurd.
To everyone who’s watched two minutes of "Bill Moyers Journal," with its panels unanimously screaming for Bush’s impeachment, or more recently, for a single-payer socialist health-care system, the idea of PBS being devoted to a "nonpartisan" stance is several miles removed from ridiculous.
But the atheists and secularists who want all traces of sectarian "proselytizing" for Jesus banned from PBS do have something to say about PBS public-affairs programming.
"Nova" creates a special to shred the authenticity of the Bible, and PBS doesn’t think to assemble a committee to evaluate it.
PBS stations air tax-subsidized documentaries celebrating lesbian-feminist choirs, “transgender” riots, and a liberal teenager fighting against abstinence education, and nobody inside “public” broadcasting wonders whether they’re guilty of doing the very “proselytizing” they condemn.
As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism that would curl the hair of any pro-lifer.
On June 12, the PBS show “Now” (formerly with Bill Moyers) devoted most of its half-hour to smearing the pro-life movement as a vicious band of terrorists.
They hailed two men who abort babies into the ninth month, Dr. Warren Hern of Colorado and Dr. Leroy Carhart of Nebraska. Reporter Maria Hinojosa briefly noted at one point that pro-life groups issued press releases denouncing Dr. Tiller’s murder, but those words were lies, claimed the abortionists.
Carhart attacked. “They may claim innocence and they may technically, under the law, be innocent, but their heart was certainly with Scott Roeder on the day that he shot Dr. Tiller.”
Hern echoed: “The anti-abortion organizations, you know, making these statements of distress and disapproval. No, no, no, no, no. This is what they wanted to happen. And it happened.”
Oppose abortion, even very late in pregnancy, and PBS is clear. You are a terrorist.
Let’s go back to Hern. “This is a terrorist movement. And they instill fear in people,” he said. “This is not an abortion debate. There's no debate. This is a civil war. The anti-abortion people are using bombs and bullets. And they've been doing this for 30 years.”
“Now” host David Brancaccio began the program with a topic sentence: was Tiller’s murder terrorism, and did it succeed? Hinojosa asked Hern: “Do you say they've won? They've been successful?”
Hern whacked that softball question silly: “Of course, they won. But this is the consequence of this kind of violence and terrorism. Terrorism works....The message from the anti-abortion movement is, ‘Do what we tell you to do, or we will kill you.’ And they do.”
On MSNBC, Hern uncorked this slur: “The main difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.” For this, he is hailed on our taxpayer-funded airwaves as a feminist hero, a very brave provider of services for desperate women.
Where was the air time for the pro-lifers? Hinojosa granted a few seconds to Randall Terry – in the familiar soundbite declaring the pro-life movement didn’t cause Tiller’s death, but Tiller was a mass murderer. PBS also aired a series of Bill O’Reilly segments where he referred to “Tiller the Baby Killer.”
Hinojosa again set up Hern, this time to denounce O’Reilly as an accessory to murder: “It's offensive, it's vulgar, it's grotesque, it’s fascist speech that's designed to get Dr. Tiller killed, and it worked.”
Despite the noxious theme that describing abortion as the death of a baby enables terrorism, no one – not Terry, not O’Reilly, not a single professional in the pro-life movement – was granted the courtesy of an interview by PBS.
This story has a very disturbing ending. Ken Bode, hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as an ombudsman or viewer’s advocate, lauded the show as “strong and convincing on this point: radical, anti-abortion opponents, including Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, are guilty of promoting domestic terrorism.”
Bode even said “Now” has established itself for reporting “within the boundaries of fairness and balance mandated by PBS standards.”
That only underlines that there are no standards for balance at PBS on the issues religious Americans care about. There’s only a standard of malice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, Read:
PBS Planning to Kick Out Stations That Broadcast 'Sectarian' Religious Programs
PBS Considers Ban on Religious Shows; Weighs Separation of Church & Stations
Newly Released Nixon Tapes: "Abortion Necessary When You Have a Black and a White"
The New York Times:
On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family." But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.
"There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white," he told an aide, before adding: "Or a rape."
Read NYT complete article HERE.
Listen to Nixon Tapes HERE
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
"Legalize Prostitution, It's Good for Your Health!" say Actresses Kathy Bates & Michelle Pfeiffer
Wow! Sounds like Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates really enjoyed playing hookers in their film, "Cheri," scheduled to open in theaters this Friday.
So much so, they think it's high time for America to legalize prostitution....for "health" reasons.
"There is an argument to be made for providing some protection for [prostitutes]," Pfeiffer told the New York Daily News at the Cinema Society and Noilly Prat screening of the film opening in theaters Friday, June 26.
"It would solve a lot of problems for them. They're going to do it anyway."
Bates concurred saying, "For health reasons, it would be better for people to enjoy those pleasures," the Oscar winner said.
I guess Pfeiffer and Bates arent' aware that prostitution is already legal in our country in the multi-billion dollar PORNOGRAPHY industry. Millions "enjoy those pleasures." The result? An AIDS outbreak
Hmmmm....could they be paving the way for a career change? Stay tuned.....
Americans: Support Iranian Protesters! See Film "The Stoning of Soraya M"
This film, based on a true story, received two-thumbs up by Archbishop Chaput. Read article here
A shocking and true drama, it exposes the dark power of mob rule, uncivil law, and the utter lack of human rights for women. The last and only hope for some measure of justice lies in the hands of the journalist who must escape with the story -- and his life -- so the world will know.
Ed Morrisey of Hot Air reports:
Having followed the efforts of Mpower Pictures to get The Stoning of Soraya M to the screen, I can vouch that the opening date this Friday has nothing but coincidental connection to the Iranian uprising of the past week. Hugh Hewitt noticed this serendipitous scheduling, and suggests in today’s Washington Examiner that people around the world can send a message to Iran by flocking to the theaters on its release:
"Americans are again asking “How can I help?” In this case, though, the government wants exactly the opposite of help for the suffering. The regime wants to increase the pain of the people, not alleviate it. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want to punish, imprison and eventually execute those who call on the West for help.
Since open contact with a dissident can bring the Basij to the dissident’s door, what’s an ordinary American to do?
Go see the movie “The Stoning of Soraya M” when it opens this week in cities across the United States. Buy tickets for your friends. Sell out every screening, and then when the film appears in more cities the following week, go again to a different theater.
Buy more tickets for more friends. Make the opening of the movie an occasion for embarrassing the Mullahs who are killing their own people. Help generate headlines that bring attention to the movie, and through it, to the regime that allows this sort of barbarism to continue.
The movie is beautiful and deeply moving, and the film’s opening would have been an enormous story even had Iran not erupted in a long-suppressed general demand for freedom from tyranny. Stoning is an abhorrent practice, but one that still goes on in Iran, as recently as March of this year, according to Radio Free Europe, when a 30-year old man was stoned to death for adultery.
Much more to the point, though, is the fundamental evil of a law code that consigns all women to a second-class status and through which the worst sorts of cruelty are not merely not punished but even endorsed. … Every American who sees “The Stoning of Soraya M” will emerge from the theater far wiser about what is driving the revolt of the people in Iran. These demonstrators want their freedom from theocracy."
I agree with Hugh that people should take this opportunity to see Soraya as soon as possible, for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, it’s simply a brilliant film. Even without the heavy political overtones, Soraya should take its place among the best of independent cinema, and the struggle to bring it to theaters should pay off in exceptional box office.
Will a big turnout embarrass the Iranian mullahcracy? I rather doubt it, especially at the moment, while they struggle to keep their grip on power. It won’t help the mullahs, certainly, but this movie is about more than just Iran, or Islamic theocracies, or religion at all. It’s more about what happens to women (and men, too) in societies where they have no rights, are chattel, and live at the mercy of those who wield absolute power.
People expecting an anti-Muslim diatribe will be disappointed; the film’s protagonist, Zahra (portrayed by Shoreh Aghdashloo) is a devout Muslim, for instance, and the local imam who helps perpetrate the atrocity is a fraud. Soraya treats Islam respectfully while focusing rightly on the true issue, which is the radical disempowerment of women in societies around the world, and the men who exploit that powerlessness for their own ends. To the extent that this will embarrass the Iranian mullahs, that shame will come not from their religion but in the way they have manipulated it to keep women powerless — which is one reason why women have joined the front lines of the protest, and why one has become a martyr for the liberation of all Iranians.
Today, Mr. Morrissey interviews Navid Negahban, who portrays Soraya’s husband with an unforgettable combination of malevolence, pettiness, and corruption, on The Ed Morrissey Show. Navid will appear live on Skype and will talk more about the film and the situation in his native Iran.
When the interview becomes available, I will update this post.
A shocking and true drama, it exposes the dark power of mob rule, uncivil law, and the utter lack of human rights for women. The last and only hope for some measure of justice lies in the hands of the journalist who must escape with the story -- and his life -- so the world will know.
Ed Morrisey of Hot Air reports:
Having followed the efforts of Mpower Pictures to get The Stoning of Soraya M to the screen, I can vouch that the opening date this Friday has nothing but coincidental connection to the Iranian uprising of the past week. Hugh Hewitt noticed this serendipitous scheduling, and suggests in today’s Washington Examiner that people around the world can send a message to Iran by flocking to the theaters on its release:
"Americans are again asking “How can I help?” In this case, though, the government wants exactly the opposite of help for the suffering. The regime wants to increase the pain of the people, not alleviate it. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want to punish, imprison and eventually execute those who call on the West for help.
Since open contact with a dissident can bring the Basij to the dissident’s door, what’s an ordinary American to do?
Go see the movie “The Stoning of Soraya M” when it opens this week in cities across the United States. Buy tickets for your friends. Sell out every screening, and then when the film appears in more cities the following week, go again to a different theater.
Buy more tickets for more friends. Make the opening of the movie an occasion for embarrassing the Mullahs who are killing their own people. Help generate headlines that bring attention to the movie, and through it, to the regime that allows this sort of barbarism to continue.
The movie is beautiful and deeply moving, and the film’s opening would have been an enormous story even had Iran not erupted in a long-suppressed general demand for freedom from tyranny. Stoning is an abhorrent practice, but one that still goes on in Iran, as recently as March of this year, according to Radio Free Europe, when a 30-year old man was stoned to death for adultery.
Much more to the point, though, is the fundamental evil of a law code that consigns all women to a second-class status and through which the worst sorts of cruelty are not merely not punished but even endorsed. … Every American who sees “The Stoning of Soraya M” will emerge from the theater far wiser about what is driving the revolt of the people in Iran. These demonstrators want their freedom from theocracy."
I agree with Hugh that people should take this opportunity to see Soraya as soon as possible, for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, it’s simply a brilliant film. Even without the heavy political overtones, Soraya should take its place among the best of independent cinema, and the struggle to bring it to theaters should pay off in exceptional box office.
Will a big turnout embarrass the Iranian mullahcracy? I rather doubt it, especially at the moment, while they struggle to keep their grip on power. It won’t help the mullahs, certainly, but this movie is about more than just Iran, or Islamic theocracies, or religion at all. It’s more about what happens to women (and men, too) in societies where they have no rights, are chattel, and live at the mercy of those who wield absolute power.
People expecting an anti-Muslim diatribe will be disappointed; the film’s protagonist, Zahra (portrayed by Shoreh Aghdashloo) is a devout Muslim, for instance, and the local imam who helps perpetrate the atrocity is a fraud. Soraya treats Islam respectfully while focusing rightly on the true issue, which is the radical disempowerment of women in societies around the world, and the men who exploit that powerlessness for their own ends. To the extent that this will embarrass the Iranian mullahs, that shame will come not from their religion but in the way they have manipulated it to keep women powerless — which is one reason why women have joined the front lines of the protest, and why one has become a martyr for the liberation of all Iranians.
Today, Mr. Morrissey interviews Navid Negahban, who portrays Soraya’s husband with an unforgettable combination of malevolence, pettiness, and corruption, on The Ed Morrissey Show. Navid will appear live on Skype and will talk more about the film and the situation in his native Iran.
When the interview becomes available, I will update this post.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Obama "Parades" Responsibility of Fatherhood, Life Begins at Conception While Riding the Abortion Float
Cartoon by: Crystal-Thanks Crys!
By Georgia Kijesky
The ultimate deceiver is at it again.
Today, Parade Magazine printed an article written by President Obama: "We Need Father's to Step Up."
In the article, Obama states, "What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child, but the courage to raise one." For the past three Father's Days, Obama has criticized the absence of fathers by stating, "responsibility does not end at conception."
I have two questions: What is a man responsible for at the beginning of conception? And, what does Obama mean when he says, "responsibility?"
I'm confused. If I recall correctly, didn't Obama say that determining the beginning of human life was "above my paygrade?" You have to click on this link and see the stark difference between Obama's answer & Senator McCain's answer.
During his campaign, Obama said that if one of his daughter's got pregnant,
'I wouldn't want them punished with a baby.'
How does equating a baby to a punishment encourage young men to act responsibly and "step-up" when faced with an unplanned pregnancy?
In the article, Obama reflects on the damage done to him by his own father who abandoned him when he was young.
For Obama, abandoning your child is worse than aborting him.
Better to snuff out the kid than to disappoint him later.
That is the twisted logic of our President.
On Father's Day, Obama, along with millions of other dads, proudly enjoy receiving hugs from their children and cards that read: "Happy Father's Day Daddy! You are the World's Greatest Dad."
Sadly, millions of childless fathers painfully spend the day wondering what kind of father they could have been, heartbroken over the loss of a son or daughter to abortion.
This brutal procedure receives the full support of President Obama--"Do NOT even give a baby born alive from a botched abortion medical attention"--he voted.
And he has the audacity to talk about his father?
He ends the article announcing his "recommittment to build a foundation for our children's dreams."
Recommittment? Huh? When was he ever committed to that cause?
Having been in office only a few short months, Obama has been committed to destroying the foundation of the right to life built by the founders of our beloved country.
With 4,000 abortions being performed per day, and 3.5 more years of Obama as President, it is a tragedy that 5.5 million babies, at the least, will never live long enough to dream a dream, or to even say, "Happy Father's Day Daddy."
By Georgia Kijesky
The ultimate deceiver is at it again.
Today, Parade Magazine printed an article written by President Obama: "We Need Father's to Step Up."
In the article, Obama states, "What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child, but the courage to raise one." For the past three Father's Days, Obama has criticized the absence of fathers by stating, "responsibility does not end at conception."
I have two questions: What is a man responsible for at the beginning of conception? And, what does Obama mean when he says, "responsibility?"
I'm confused. If I recall correctly, didn't Obama say that determining the beginning of human life was "above my paygrade?" You have to click on this link and see the stark difference between Obama's answer & Senator McCain's answer.
During his campaign, Obama said that if one of his daughter's got pregnant,
'I wouldn't want them punished with a baby.'
How does equating a baby to a punishment encourage young men to act responsibly and "step-up" when faced with an unplanned pregnancy?
In the article, Obama reflects on the damage done to him by his own father who abandoned him when he was young.
For Obama, abandoning your child is worse than aborting him.
Better to snuff out the kid than to disappoint him later.
That is the twisted logic of our President.
On Father's Day, Obama, along with millions of other dads, proudly enjoy receiving hugs from their children and cards that read: "Happy Father's Day Daddy! You are the World's Greatest Dad."
Sadly, millions of childless fathers painfully spend the day wondering what kind of father they could have been, heartbroken over the loss of a son or daughter to abortion.
This brutal procedure receives the full support of President Obama--"Do NOT even give a baby born alive from a botched abortion medical attention"--he voted.
And he has the audacity to talk about his father?
He ends the article announcing his "recommittment to build a foundation for our children's dreams."
Recommittment? Huh? When was he ever committed to that cause?
Having been in office only a few short months, Obama has been committed to destroying the foundation of the right to life built by the founders of our beloved country.
With 4,000 abortions being performed per day, and 3.5 more years of Obama as President, it is a tragedy that 5.5 million babies, at the least, will never live long enough to dream a dream, or to even say, "Happy Father's Day Daddy."
Friday, June 19, 2009
Abortion Debate(Video): Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee went on John Stewart last night to debate another controversial topic: abortion.
Huckabee's last appearance on the late-night show made a splash, after he and Stewart spent the entire segment engaged in a heated debate over gay marriage.
This time around, Huckabee -- a Southern Baptist minister and former Republican presidential candidate -- was invited to choose the topic.
Huckabee's last appearance on the late-night show made a splash, after he and Stewart spent the entire segment engaged in a heated debate over gay marriage.
This time around, Huckabee -- a Southern Baptist minister and former Republican presidential candidate -- was invited to choose the topic.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Fr. Tom Euteneuer Recounts Violent Acts of Pro-Abortion Radicals: From Being Splattered with Abortion Blood to Dog Head Thrown into Church
By Frank Walker, Pewsitter
June 19, 2009 - Pro-life leaders world-wide, having chosen to stand effectively against a violent and powerful industry, become targets for hostility. This week I asked Fr. Tom Euteneuer, of Human Life International, to describe what he and his organization have encountered.
Question: As an outspoken visible pro-life advocate, you work against the goals of pro-abortion politics and the abortion industry. In what ways have you been threatened, either written or verbally, with physical harm?
Fr. Euteneuer: In the days when I was more actively doing sidewalk counseling, I was threatened with death twice by abortion clinic workers, threatened with physical harm numerous times by boyfriends and others who accompanied women to the clinic and several times I was assaulted by people in vehicles trying to run me over. The verbal harassment is too numerous and gross to recount, especially when directed against a man of the cloth.
Question: What forms of harassment have you encountered in your work and travels, and which
groups or organizations seem to be sources of intimidation?
Fr. Euteneuer: There has been less harassment in my work with HLI given that I remain mostly in pro-life circles and focus on training and motivating. The anti-lifers are usually in their comfortable air-conditioned offices plotting the destruction of more children and do not harass us too much both because they are cowards and because they don’t need to have direct contact with us.
Several members of our international network who have direct contact with the abortion lobby in their countries do encounter problems however:
-In Kenya an abortionist tried to poison our director;
-In Mexico, the HLI director found a knife covered with red blood-like liquid stuck in his couch with a message to stay out of abortion;
-In Austria the anti-lifers have sued our affiliate (without success) and the city government of Vienna created special laws against them;
-In the Philippines there are attacks against the character of our pro-life people and one parliamentarian called for the deportation of HLI’s Dr. Brian Clowes when he did a speaking tour there;
-In Ecuador our affiliate leader was threatened with death, satanic graffiti was put on the door of a church against us, the severed head of a dog was thrown into a church with a desecrated Sacred Host in its mouth.
Question: What specific security steps must you take in order to protect yourself from these attacks?
Fr. Euteneuer: Prayer.
Question: In addition, have you learned of threats or violence to people close to you or in your family?
Fr. Euteneuer: There has only been intimidation of family members like my father who stands in front of the local Planned Parenthood. It is regular fare: he has insults hurled at him and bottles thrown from cars.
Question: How have these instances of intimidation and violence changed over the years?
Fr. Euteneuer: The violence and intimidation seems to change as political fortunes change: it tends to go from personal to institutional. For example, during the Clinton years the FACE Act was passed to shut down Operation Rescue-type protests; we can expect the same and worse in the Obama Administration. The physical assaults and intimidations will likely get worse also as the forces of death are emboldened by radical laws and policies.
Question: Have threats, intimidation or violent harassment ever come in an open or official capacity?
Fr. Euteneuer: HLI was denied official status at the UN in the late ‘90s due to its strong stance on the life issues. The only other example that I can think of in my case is when the Minister of Health in Zimbabwe officially vetoed my talk to a nursing school in Harare. The incident of Dr. Brian Clowes in the Philippines mentioned above is another example. Other than open criticism in the media, we are more of a grass-roots training and educational organization and under the radar screen of most governments.
Question: Finally, has there been an increase in irrational behavior including threats and violence?
Fr. Euteneuer: The behaviors have always been irrational, but the new element seems to be an occult element that I believe we will see more in the future. “Death-scorts” seem to be more prone to curse and "pray" against pro-lifers probably due to so many of them being involved in New Age and witchcraft. Some of it is overt and some not. The abortion clinic owner in Rockford, IL periodically comes out of his place dressed in a devil outfit, for example. He also puts blasphemous images of Jesus and religion in the window of the clinic. One abortionist in FL some years ago shook blood from his abortion instruments on the pro-lifers after a morning of killing. We will see much more of this in time.
Pro-Choice? Then it is time to choose: Are you REALLY a Catholic?
I found this most relevent, thought-provoking opinion piece on Catholic.org today. It begs the question that I would love to ask most self-proclaimed "Catholics" that I know. As a matter of fact, the author of this piece, Jennifer Hartline, along with Deacon Keith Fornier, asks all of us to send this article to our family, friends, neighbors, etc., and join in this vital mission broadcasting WE ARE PROUD TO BE CATHOLIC! Enjoy!
The Church is not out of step with society; society is out of step with the Church.
“Today, more than ever, our nation is in need of Catholics who know their faith deeply and express their faith, with integrity, by their daily living.” Archbishop Raymond Burke
After reading His Excellency’s outstanding address at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and studying the current state of affairs in our nation, I’m prompted to ask a personal question:
Are you really Catholic?
Are you Catholic because your parents were Catholic, because their parents were Catholic because their parents were Catholic? Is it your culture or your faith? Is it your present choice or your history? Is it your conviction or a “hat” you put on for baptisms, weddings and funerals?
The evidence clearly shows that too many “Catholics” in America are Catholic for reasons other than a conviction of faith. And that’s just not going to cut it any longer. Our culture and our country are flying at warp speed into a black hole of godlessness, and I am increasingly flabbergasted at the sheer number of Catholics who are helping to fuel the descent.
Shamefully, the fact is that Catholics are largely responsible for electing our current government. That means that the majority of Catholics in America either don’t truly know their faith and what it means, or they don’t care, or they lack the courage to make their choices in properly informed by their faith.
It’s pathetic that so many who say they belong to Christ are so easily beguiled and deceived.The sacrifice of the Cross must not mean very much to many of us because we’re willing to sell it real cheap in exchange for the good opinion of those who would silence Christ. Precious Blood was spilled for our sins. Today our leaders and our culture want to wash away Its saving stain, and the majority of Catholics are quietly watching them mop… even handing them a bucket.
It’s not enough to be culturally Catholic, a holiday Catholic, or Catholic by ancestry. It is certainly not good enough to profess a Catholic faith in church, and then deny it by our life’s choices. Hear these words from our faithful Archbishop:
“In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural. If we as individuals or our Catholic institutions are not willing to accept the burdens and the suffering necessarily involved in calling our culture to reform, then we are not worthy of the name Catholic.”
It is our Christian duty to call our culture to reform. We’re not supposed to blend in and “adapt” our faith to the changing times! We’re supposed to be showing our lost culture the way of true and lasting peace, which can only be found in Christ. It is our responsibility to be firm in defense of the natural and moral law even when it makes us unpopular or hated. If we’re not willing to do that are we worthy to be called Catholic?
Our Church is far from perfect. There will always be mistakes, even travesties that we will weep over and work to correct with God’s grace. As long as people are flawed, there will always be problems to overcome. But Jesus has promised us that even the gates of hell will not prevail against us. He has given us His body for food and we have the Holy Spirit to guide us and our Blessed Mother to aid and comfort us. We have everything we need, if we will only be true to Christ instead of this world.
You are free to decide where and with whom you stand. You do not, however, have the right to try to change the Catholic Church to suit your opinions or wishes. No matter how brilliant you are, you are not above the Magisterium. No matter how persuasive the political position, you cannot ignore the law of the Church and the Natural Law. Doctrine and Orthodoxy may be distasteful words in this age of personal freedoms, but if you call yourself Catholic, you need to know what Catholic doctrine actually says and follow it. All of it – not just this or that particular idea that suits your preferences. The Church is not a cafeteria. You are not free to take some things and leave others.
If you are pro-abortion (also dishonestly known as “pro-choice”), you are not a faithful Catholic. It is never okay to kill an unborn human being. There simply is no way to reconcile support for abortion with authentic Catholic teaching which is based upon the simple foundation of true human rights beginning with the Right to Life.
If you are in favor of gay “marriage”, you are not a faithful Catholic. The defense of marriage between one man and one woman is not about denying anyone equality. Marriage is not a right that every person is equally “entitled” to the same as free speech. The union of man and woman is the only solid foundation on which to build a family, as God so wisely ordained from the very beginning. The family is the first cell of the Church and the first society.
If you support (that means vote for) politicians who advocate and legislate for laws and policies that violate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, you are choosing to conform to this world rather than be transformed by Christ, and that’s very dangerous for all of us. To whom does your heart belong? It’s time to wipe out the notion that it’s okay for a Catholic to believe one thing in private and support the opposite in public, a la Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Sebelius, etc. It is not okay. It is in fact, a mockery of our faith and a pathetic lie.
Either live as a Catholic Christian or don’t, but stop trying to remodel the Church to make it more appealing to the world. Learn your Catholic faith, understand it correctly and LIVE IT out in public without apologizing. Stop compromising the truth. Quit trying to rewrite Church teaching to bring it “up to speed” with modern times. The Church is not out of step with society; society is out of step with the Church. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and thus His Church is timeless, ageless and always perfectly relevant. It is not the Church who needs to change her thinking; it is society that needs to CORRECT its thinking.
Abortion is evil today because it’s always been evil and always will be. Gay “marriage’ is wrong today because it’s always been wrong and always will be. What is true and right and holy and sacred and pleasing to God never changes, no matter how the world may change.
The Catholic Church in America is in crisis, for sure, because too many people wearing that name are not living the true faith. That fact was on display this weekend at Notre Dame for the entire world to see. A Catholic University bestowed a law degree and honor upon a President who is fiercely determined to make it as easy as possible to kill babies all over the world. And today one more poll shows that still a majority of American Catholics don’t think it’s a problem. In my estimation, that means that a majority of American Catholics are simply not being faithful Catholics.
President Obama knows this quite well, and he’s only too happy to use our crisis of faith to his advantage. Are you okay with that? It is time to choose. Are you really Catholic?
Catholic Higher Education Leaders to Bishops: Eliminate Ban on Pro-Abortion Speakers
Life Site News reports that in the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.
Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw their 2004 policy," according to the newsletter.
The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.
“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”
The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.
Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.
“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.
Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.
In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.
In April, the leaders of the nation’s 28 Jesuit colleges and universities were put on record by Rev. Charles Currie, S.J., president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, as supporting Notre Dame’s honor of President Obama. Father Currie also indicated to the National Catholic Reporter that lobbying of the bishops had already begun: “[We] have been talking to individual bishops to see if we can’t lower the volume and lessen the heat of the discussion.”“It is sadly all too clear that the many secularized Catholic colleges and universities are more concerned with doing away with the rules than ending the scandals,” concluded Reilly.
“Lobbying the bishops to back off a perfectly reasonable policy would be a shameful action by the Catholic higher education establishment, and hardly an appropriate response to Notre Dame’s betrayal of the nation’s bishops and the university’s own Catholic mission.
“The lesson of the Notre Dame scandal is clear: even our leading Catholic universities have lost their way, and they need precisely the sort of clear direction from the bishops that the 2004 policy on Catholic honors and platforms represents.
“Only those who find nothing wrong with honoring pro-abortion leaders, hosting productions of the vile The Vagina Monologues, employing dissident theologians and snubbing the bishops would find it helpful to weaken or withdraw guidelines meant to safeguard the souls of Catholic college and university students.”
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Rhetoric Trumps Record for Vatican Newspaper Editor-in-Chief who says: Obama is not "Pro-Abortion," He is just "Pro-Choice"
By Georgia Kijesky
Last month the Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano explained to Paulo Rodari, a Vatican analyst for the daily “Il Riformista,” that President Barack Obama’s speech to graduates of Notre Dame was very respectful and that he
“is not a pro-abortion president.”
In the interview with Rodari, Editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian discussed his thoughts on President Obama at the University of Notre Dame. “Obama has not upset the world,” he said. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.’ To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”
Today(June 18), Life Site News reported:
"According to the editor-in-chief of the Vatican’s quasi-official newspaper, US President Barack Obama in his pre-presidential voting record may have “made decisions that certainly cannot be defined as pro-life,” but this does not make him “pro-abortion.”
“He was, rather, pro-choice,” said L’Osservatore Romano’s Gian Maria Vian.
(Read: The History of L'Osservatore Romano HERE)
Read the rest of the Life Site News article HERE
The obvious enthusiasm L'Osservatore Romano exudes for Obama is shameful--as it repeatedly glosses over his anti-Catholic, anti-Christian & radically anti-life agenda.
PRIOR to OBAMA PRESIDENCY:
In 1990, Obama argued in an unsigned law review article that
“the state may…have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born.”
-1997-2002Obama manages to be more Pro-Abortion than NARAL when he voted twice AGAINST giving a baby born alive from a botched abortion medical attention; in addition, he gave a neutral "present" vote in 1997 which means neither "yes" nor "no." Three votes in total...none of which included a "yes" to helping a baby born alive from a botched abortion.
***IF THIS RECORD ALONE DOES NOT SATISFY A "PRO-ABORTION" QUALIFICATION for Vian....than NOBODY is pro-abortion!! He is even more Pro-Abortion than NARAL who stated, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."***
2005-2006, Obama votes against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts on political grounds while acknowledging that Roberts is highly qualified. And also voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
2005-2007 Obama received a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood
In 2008, Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would gut all national and state restrictions on abortion. Obama has promised that the first thing he will do in office is sign FOCA, despite the fact that it is one of the most sweeping pieces of pro-abortion legislation ever proposed.
While running for President, ObamaPROMISED to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if elected president, "The first thing I will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. I will not yield & Planned Parenthood will not yield",
Also during his campaign, in a forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, Obama said
that the issue of when a child gets human rights is “above his pay grade” despite the fact that he is a lawyer and the issue of human rights is most immediately a legal question.
2008, Obama selects Ellen Moran, the former head of the radical pro-abortion political group Emily’s List to be director of White House Communications and appoints Melody Barnes, board member of the radical abortion lobby group Emily’s List, as head of the Domestic Policy Council.
2008, Obama’s transition team published a pro-abortion “wish list” assembled by dozens of pro-abortion groups. The document outlines a radical abortion agenda for Obama’s first 100 days that would include taxpayer-funded abortions and compelling pro-life doctors to assist in abortions.
DURING OBAMA PRESIDENCY & PRIOR to NOTRE DAME SPEECH
-Appointed 100% pro-abort Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief-of-Staff, who also earned a 100% abortion voting record from NARAL
-Reversed the Mexico City Policy
-Issues executive order on funding embryonic stem-cell research
-Rescinded the global gag rule
-President Obama signed legislation into law fixing the birth-control price crisis at college health centers and safety-net provider clinics across the country. (As a senator, Obama authored this legislation.) (March 11)
-Funded the UNFPA--which supports forced abortions in China
-has taken 1st steps to overturn Bush administration protections for doctors who don't want to do abortions. Obama announced his intention to repeal the Federal Refusal Rule.(February 27)
-Signed legislation increasing family-planning funding for American women by $7 million, and cutting "abstinence-only" programs by $14 million. (March 11)
-Signaled his commitment to medically accurate sex education by including it in his first-ever budget outline. (February 26)
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14420
-Obama selects Ellen Moran, the former head of the radical pro-abortion political group Emily’s List to be director of White House Communications.
-Nominated pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius to head the Department of Health and Human Services, who has a long pro-abortion record in the state of Kansas.
-Nominated former NARAL legal director & FOCA architect Dawn Johnson who said, "Pro-life laws 'reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers'to head the Office of Legal Counsel
-Obama nominated Indiana district court judge David Hamilton as his first federal appellate court nominee. Judge Hamilton is a board member of Indiana ACLU, and the author of a seven-year-long series of rulings obstructing Indiana’s implementation of its law providing for informed consent on abortion.
-Obama appointed Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who argued that Terri Schiavo’s husband had the right to end his wife’s life, to serve as Associate Attorney General, the Justice Department’s third highest position.
Undoubtedly, for Vian, Obama's flowery rhetoric trumps his radical pro-abortion record.
In an article published by National Review, George Weigel, famous for his biography of Pope John Paul II, commented: “It is unfortunate that several recent pieces on the Obama administration in L’Osservatore Romano have been both factually questionable and analytically dubious.” Weigel explained that “the offices of the Holy See are replete with middle- and lower-level officials who are enamored of Barack Obama. Why? In most cases, because they are Europeans who share the typical European Obamaphilia and whose sources of information and analysis are manifestly skewed.”
Weigel concluded: “That is a problem for the senior officials of the Holy See to address, and they ought to address it soon.”
To contact the Vatican Secretary of State with concerns:
Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone,
Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano,
Citta del Vaticano
00120
Phone: 06.69.88.39.13
Fax: 06.69.88.52.55
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
ABC Refuses Paid Ad that Presents Alternative Viewpoint to Obama Healthcare Plan during White House Special
ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!
The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.
Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.
Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:
"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."
Developing...
Read: ABC Promises Republicans healthcare coverage will not be an Obama "infomercial"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Obama's Pro-Abortion Record
100% of funds raised go directly to Pro-Life efforts
This is, by far, the BEST prayer book I have ever read!
Not just a prayer book for teens...but for people of all ages! You will LOVE it! Order your copy TODAY!
Dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe
Patroness of the Americas, Intercessor for the Pre-born
Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!
Chinese
French
German
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Spanish
