Climate Change cluster-muck

Bernard Goldberg has written a stimulating column on the Papal pronouncements, albeit endorsement, of Global Warming and Climate Change.

He argues against the Pope getting involved in the politics. So has Jeb Bush insinuated he does not march to that tune. Here’s an excerpt of the column hoping others check it out.

Liberals will love that message too. But here comes the uh oh alert. This was also in the encyclical on global warming: “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?”

I’m guessing liberals weren’t too happy with that part. But abortion is also a moral issue at the core of the church’s teaching. And so is gay marriage and to some extent, Bruce Jenner too.

– See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/the-pope-global-warming-and-the-elusive-meaning-of-morality/

No Bernard, right, he is not going to lose sleep that you aren’t buying the snake oil.

Obama finds his voice on Christians

I must first give my due sympathies and prayers to the evil shootings in Charleston, SC . Then Obama comes out to make his statement on it after the AG had opined on it. Loretta Lynch said that the Civil Rights team was already on the ground in Charleston. It’s horrible evil that should not have happened.

Anyway, Obama for months has been faced with evil. All the atrocities committed by ISIS and terrorists. Christians being persecuted, a genocide unfolding in the Middle East, and an ancient Caliphate resurfacing. In all these current happenings on his watch he could not even deliver lip-service toward Christian victims — even after being reminded.

He’ll describe any other aspects about them but, even when Christians were marched out to a choreographed beheading, he referred to Christianity as benignly as he could. Charles Krauthammer wrote of Obama during these evil persecutions, “Obama’s reaction to, shall we say, turmoil abroad has been one of alarming lassitude and passivity.”

The Islamists of the Caliphate released their beheading video under the title: “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nations of the Cross”. Obama, in a carefully crafted statement, referred to victims this way:

The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. – More

Now anyone would have to be brain dead to intentionally not mention their Christian Faith, particularly as they testified with their final words. However, not to disappoint his astonishing record in hypocrisy and double standards, Obama finds his voice for Christian victimhood — sort of — in the evil execution of 9 Christians in Charleston this week. Washington Post has the video and transcript here.

Michelle and I know several members of Emanuel AME Church. We knew their pastor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight others, gathered in prayer and fellow ship and was murdered last night, and to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and their community doesn’t say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.

Any death of this sort is a tragedy. Any shooting involving multiple victims is a tragedy. There is something particularly heartbreaking about a death happening in a place in which we seek solace and we seek peace, in a place of worship.

Mother Emanuel is, in fact, more than a church. This is a place of worship that was founded by African Americans seeking liberty. This is a church that was burned to the ground because its worshipers worked to end slavery.

When there were laws banning all-black church gatherings, they conducted church services in secret. When there was a nonviolent movement to bring our country in closer line with our highest ideals, some of our brightest leaders spoke and led marches from this church’s steps.

This is a sacred place in the history of Charleston and in the history of America.

The FBI is now on the scene with local police, and more of the bureau’s best are on their way to join them. The attorney general has announced plans for the FBI to open a hate crime investigation. We understand that the suspect is in custody, and I’ll let the best of law enforcement do its work to make sure that justice is served.

Until the investigation is complete, I’m necessarily constrained in terms of talking about the details of the case. But I don’t need constrained about the emotions that tragedies like this raise.

He makes sure to give due reference to the history and their faith. But look at the backdrop, or foreground as it were.

He referred the Church as a sacred place, particularly due to the church’s history in anti-slavery and its black heritage. That was the perspective he emphasized. That it happened to be a Christian one was secondary. Still he did find his voice for slain Christians.

He found that note, be it via black cultural heritage.

When you contrast that with Coptic Christians in the Middle East, whose heritage goes back over a thousand years, he could not even give lip service to their plight of persecution. It proved that once again, the only concern of Obama is politics, and next to that the cultural bent he chooses to see. He’ll mention Muslim hatred. Then he goes to a prayer breakfast to remind Christians of crusades and “terrible deeds”

So now he finds a way to address Christian murders. Now he is sympathetic to Christians?

Then he goes on to indulge himself in his ‘trigger warning’ message:

I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times.

We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hand on a gun.

Now is the time for mourning and for healing. But let’s be clear. At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.

And it is in our power to do something about it.

So there we have it. He has again reduced a national evil event to a political debate on gun control. He even had to besmirch his recognition of Christian executions to an ideological tourniquet, when the hemorrhaging is coming from the Oval Office Ideologue in Chief. He is only interested in the black historical aspect of the event, and how it can be used to serve his ideological ends. Sure he gave due mention to their Christian faith, to black history, to anti-slavery, and then has wed it to his ideological battle.

The words “We shall overcome” have been co-opted by Obama’s political war.

Yet the real message in this evil is that, if you believe the reports of his motives, the shooter acting in racist hatred had wanted to ignite a race war. And now with the arraignment process, where victims families displayed the greatest character I’ve seen, Obama is the one igniting a war.

He and the Al Sharptons push a perpetual battle in their rhetoric. But I have not seen a hint of that by people in Charleston, or among victims. As if it were not even a possibility. That is American exceptionalism at its finest. Meanwhile, Obama digs into his bag of race-baiting right from the start.

Even as bad as playing the race card is the rush to a gun control.Unbelievably, it plays right into what the shooter had designed. Whether a war over race or war on guns, the incident was meant to inflame larger society. The only ones fanning those flames are the political ideologues and demagogues. Let us rise above race-baiting.

RightRing | Bullright

A sad story from Russia

A story that just makes you take a deep breath.

Learn Life blog

In most cases, children commit suicides because of family problems. An eleven-year-old boy hung himself several days ago in Russia’s Altay region in an attempt to make his parents quit drinking alcohol. His mother found the boy hanging on a rope in a barn.

Continue: https://ajayghayal.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/boy-hangs-himself-to-make-his-parents-stop-drinking/

Seems it is not an isolated case though.

There is a lot of this going on

The title on this article could be slightly misleading to people today. It may not be just what you expect.

If Only Christians In America Today Would Sing Louder!

Together, we can turn this destruction around; but if you choose to remain silent, don’t be surprised when they come for you and there is no one left to speak out.

Bradlee Dean May 15, 2015 | Western Journalism

When the hypocrites and accomplices to Adolph Hitler (Matthew 7:21-23) would sing praises to Jesus in the protestant churches in Germany, they would sing louder to drown out the noise of the Jews, Gypsies, and dissidents who were crying out for help while they were being hauled off in cattle cars to concentration camps–or even worse, extermination camps (Psalm 78:9).

When church services were over, they would find their cars toppled with the ash of the bodies that were burned in the incinerators.

To further the atrocities of these traitors to Christ, they were the ones handing off their youth groups to do Hitler’s killing for them.

These professors loved Jesus so much that they simply disobeyed His commandments with every opportunity they had (1 John 2:4).

I am sure most of you have heard:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

– Martin Niemöller

Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for this quotation. I have heard this quote many times before, but it was just recently that I learned that the man who said it was a prominent protestant pastor during the time of Hitler and the Nazis. It was learning this fact that made all the difference in the world in understanding where this quote stemmed from. […/]

More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/if-only-christians-in-america-today-would-just-sing-louder/

We certainly have our problems today, and Christians nor churches are immune to the culture contributing to the apathy. Many do recommend singing a little louder. Not to make it a left and right problem, but there can be no denying the liberalization and its political influence gnawing at the foundation.

Just a little louder, please. And ignore those 55 million babies piling up, too. Climate change is a symptom of man but killing millions of babies is commendable and dignified. Preserving the habitat for the Delta Smelt is something worthy, while sacrificing babies on the altar of protecting abortion is worth fighting to preserve. Got values?

Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

Advocacy for death

I’ll post this piece because I was so struck by it. I guess suicide advocacy is on the rise though it still sounds like a marginal idea to me. But what was marginal 50 years ago is not so much now. Wesley Smith does an excellent job explaining the ideas.

Family-Supported Suicide Harms Society

by Wesley J. Smith March 21, 2015 | National Review – The Corner

There was once a time when friends, family, and society worked to prevent suicides. Now, if the suicidal person is ill or disabled, there is support for self-killing, with friends and family members even attending the deed.

That–and what it may portend–is the subject of my biweekly First Things. From, “Family-Support Suicide and the Duty to Die:”

Is it right or wrong to support a loved one’s suicide? This seems to be one of those issues, increasingly prevalent in our society, about which debate is not possible: The answer depends on one’s overarching worldview.

Some will believe that their duty is to support their family member’s choice, come what may. Others, including this writer, believe that supporting suicide is an abandonment that validates loved ones’ worst fears about themselves—that they are a burden, unworthy of love, or truly better off dead.

What might this phenomenon portend?

Family backing for suicide furthers the normalization of hastened death as a proper response to human suffering. Such normalization, over time, will put increasing pressure on those coping with the infirmities of age and with the debilitations of serious illnesses and disabilities to view their suicides as not only a suitable approach, but perhaps even as an obligation to those they love.

This is known in bioethics as the “duty to die,” which has been debated for years in professional discourse.

I quote some advocacy material for a duty to die:

A duty to die becomes greater as you grow older. . . . To have reached the age of, say, seventy-five or eighty years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life’s basic realities.

This isn’t a fringe idea. Books have been written on the topic. I conclude:

No, a day won’t come when the euthanasia police kick down doors and force unwanted lethal injections upon the sick and elderly. But legal compulsion isn’t the only way to push people out of the lifeboat. The more public support families and friends give their ill or debilitated loved ones’ suicides, the greater the prospect that a moral duty to die will become culturally legitimate.

Again, I don’t see how we debate this. Either we want such a society, or we don’t.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415774/family-supported-suicide-harms-society-wesley-j-smith

(Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patient’s Rights Council.)

Also see First Things article

He has a followup post “$200,000 per Year to Push Assisted Suicide

Seems to be two issues here, what they are doing — or is it we — and the industry it has become. Neither of which bodes well for society.

Obama honors sacrifices at Selma

Obama gave a speech at the 50th anniversary of Selma’s “Bloody Sunday” march. He quoted the phrase “We shall overcome”. Some of us wish we would overcome, him.

But what about the 57 million fetuses and babies struck down in abortion since 1973?
What about their sacrifices in America, paying with their lives, blood and treasure?

  • Deprived of Life liberty and pursuit of happiness
  • Deprived of due process.
  • Deprived of their inevitable right to vote.
  • Deprived of their rights of speech, religion, and assembly.
  • Deprived of the opportunity to make change, to the culture and perception.

Obama’s Selma speech was hailed as historic and a mile-marker of time, to recognize a cause: from racism to voter rights. Yet just days before, Benjamin Netanyahu gave an important joint session speech while Obama, Biden and many of their fellow travelers could not even attend. However, Obama rushed out to say that there was nothing new in it.

So his speech at Selma was nothing new that we didn’t already know. And political.

Obama will boldly take executive action for amnesty for illegals and he unilaterally, unconstitutionally rewrites law under the guise of helping victims. But he would never take any simple action to save the unborn. In fact, he offers Planned Parenthood more money. He is the biggest friend and ally of the nation’s largest abortion provider. He swears on the altar of a decision of Roe v Wade. Now 17.3 million black babies aborted since 1973.

On this great anniversary of Selma, and Dr King, he allies himself with the downtrodden and victims, preaching social change and rights. The purpose of government is to secure our inalienable rights — not the other way around.

A couple of the quotes from his speech were: (3 excerpts from the transcript)

-“We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people.”

-“That’s what America is. Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American as others. We respect the past, but we don’t pine for it.”

-“Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person.

Because the single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. It is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.”

“We” is a powerful word, no doubt about it. But he co-opted that into a cheap campaign slogan of “yes we can” to propel his own political agenda. And he still extorts the people for his own political ends. He offers no consolation or concessions to those that disagree with his agenda. Then he closed by saying: (emphasis mine)

“We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.

May He bless those warriors of justice no longer with us, and bless the United States of America.”

We honor their sacrifices, do we? Does he honor the combined sacrificed blood of 57 million abortions? Well, only if honor means swimming in the blood of 57 million aborted babies, who were denied their right to life and due process, who weren’t even granted second-class human being status, but aborted. No amnesty or Executive action for them.

But this guy can rally people lecturing them to use their God-given rights, extorting the Selma anniversary for political purposes. Yet he just condemned Netanyahu for giving a national security speech for percieved “political” reasons calling it a distraction. Democrats poo-pooed it as political theatrics. The urgency of an emergent nuclear holocaust means as much to him as the human genocide of abortion right here in the USA. In fact, he defends the latter as a right. So how far will he go to appease Iran’s nuclear aspirations?

We shall overcome“… Oh Lord, I pray it be so!

Obama’s ‘ideology’ bandwagon running wild

Since the closest Obama will come to naming the Islamic terrorists is talking about “whatever ideology”, I’ll try to decipher some of his lofty linguistic perversion.

Allow me to remind him of the ideology that endorses wholesale slaughter, i.e. genocide, as a supreme “right”. His own ideology, which is only about 100 years in the making, but which is responsible for extinguishing over 50 million human lives and counting just in the last 40+ years. It’s now enshrined as a sacred fundamental “right”, and forces all people to swear on its altar of protecting the right to kill the unborn — using buzz words like “safe”.

He doesn’t even want babies to be born and believes in slaughtering and scorching them with saline baths in the womb. The ideology so extreme it doesn’t believe in providing measures in the event of a botched abortion. An ideology that celebrates the anniversary to “preserve” its butchery practice. Brain, meet scissors and vacuum hoses.

An ideology that claims to stand on the side of science, while boldly defying it on abortion. An ideology that believes in an “evolving, living Constitution” while devolving morality.

Or maybe the ideology which targets nuns on a mission to serve poor people. One that proudly lays bare the state’s right to target people for their “deeply held religious views,” persecute them, or lobbies to keep them from government service. One that believes America is lacking moral principles, but which attacks morality and values in every corner it can. One which stands truth on its head, and draws moral equivalences of its political opponents to tyrants, while it makes alliances with brutal regimes and tyrants.

Or we can talk about the ideology which attacks Israel as an occupier, and America as an enabler, while en masse it appeases regimes in their schemes against freedom.

The ideology that hurts and victimizes people, then claims to help them and uses them as political pawns to gain and retain power. Yet now Obama is talking about a “bankrupt” ideology. Really? Get off our “high horse”?

RightRing | Bullright

New York Doctor Charged With Abortion And Strangulation In Allegedly Forcing Girlfriend To Swallow Morning After Pill

Law Professor Jonathon Turley posted this abortion case that is nothing short of bizarre. I doubt it will get much mainstream coverage.

It should be interesting to see how this case turns out.

JONATHAN TURLEY

6137541_GThere is a highly disturbing case out of New York where a Hudson Valley anesthesiologist, Thomas Pfeiffer, 44, had been charged with strangulation, abortion and assault after he allegedly choked a woman and forced her to swallow a “morning after” pill after she told him she was pregnant. The abortion charge is relatively rare in criminal cases.

View original post 263 more words

Youth take pro-life message to the street

High school students fight back against culture of death. Bold challenge at abortion clinic!

These kids are the real thing – an inspiration to all of us!
POSTED: November 10, 2014 | Mass Resistance

When it comes to standing up to the culture of death, a lot of people have given up on the youth of America. But don’t believe it!

The students at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School in Still River, MA, out-perform most adult groups. They take activism right to the streets! (See their video .)

And like all moral heroes, [Principal] Br. Thomas is hated by the Left. Earlier this year, the Boston Globe published an editorial personally attacking Br. Thomas after he wrote a letter to the editor taking an uncompromising stand supporting the Parade organizers’ right to hold their parade with real Catholic values.

More: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/14d/immaculate-heart-school/index.html

They made a good video with a great message. Contrast that with the performance and message of the culture of death crowd.

Rafael Cruz: The Bible tells you exactly who to vote for

Epic: Watch Ted Cruz’s Dad Slam Obama, Lois Lerner, And Eric Holder With The Bible

“Let me prove it to you.”

Weatern Journalism | B. Christopher Agee — May 21, 2014

“Don’t elect the village idiot.” …”Essence of Federalism”.

Tea Party-Backed Sen. Ted Cruz often cites the impact his father, Cuban immigrant Rafael Cruz, had on his current status as a conservative icon. The elder Cruz, who serves as a pastor in Texas, remains an outspoken advocate for traditional values and, during a recent speech in Foxboro, Mass., presented the case for mixing faith and politics.

He addressed members and guests of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly 4th Chapter, concluding that the “Bible talks a lot about politics,” going on to explain how God’s Word can direct voters.

Read more

Abortion is just part of motherhood

Don’t think so? Then you must be an extremist, that’s always the meme of the Left.

Pro-Abortion Author Says Abortion is Normal & “Part of Being a Mother”

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/30/14

Earlier this month, The Huffington Post published an excerpt of Katha Pollitt’s new book, “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights.” The excerpt is titled “The Abortion Conversation We Need to Have” and starts with Pollitt”s statement that abortion “is a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women.”

Then Pollitt attempts to convince her readers that abortion can be moral. She writes: “We need to see abortion as an urgent practical decision that is just as moral as the decision to have a child — indeed, sometimes more moral.

Pro-choicers often say no one is “pro-abortion,” but what is so virtuous about adding another child to the ones you’re already overwhelmed by? Why do we make young women feel guilty for wanting to feel ready for motherhood before they have a baby? Isn’t it a good thing that women think carefully about what it means to bring a child into this world — what, for example, it means to the children she already has? We tend to think of abortion as anti-child and anti- motherhood.

In media iconography, it’s the fetus versus the coat hanger: that is, abortion kills an “unborn baby,” but banning it makes women injure themselves. Actually, abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it’s not a good idea to bring them into the world.” (Emphasis added)

More: LifeNews.com

“We need to talk about ending a pregnancy as a common, even normal, event in the reproductive lives of women — and not just modern American women either,” Pollitt said.

It’s moral and virtuous. Obviously, her biggest problem is those of us who don’t accept the Planned Parenthood paradigm. You know, who think life is the principle to stand on.

As the article points out, she is not only at odds with pro-lifers but some pro-abortion intelligentsia as well.

“Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.” — Elizabeth Williams in Salon.

One can only hope that in 2014 so many of the Liberals’ specious arguments and talking points can be ostracized, like the candidate getting booed for “war on women” Imagine? Maybe this rhetoric will become worn out, too.

Apparently the pro-abortion rationale has not reached that point, yet. (they still use them) “Normal” should have a hard time selling. “Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children.” Well, I hope we might have at least reached the saturation level.

RightRing | Bullright

DNC plumbing the depths with PP

Democrats, DNC or DCCC have some election ads calling Republicans and conservatives extremists and radicals for being anti-Planned Parenthood.

Imagine, in 2014 it is considered “radical” and extremist for a candidate to oppose an institutional baby-killing agenda. So being pro-life is now radical.

Here is just one of many ads from Dems and the DNC with a common message .


Script:

Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.” — [speech to Sons of Liberty in 2010 ]
Narrator:
Tea Party millionaire Nan Hayworth.  She calls herself a radical.
But what does that mean for you?
Hayworth opposed a woman’s right to choose.
And voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
And on Social Security, Hayworth wants to risk seniors’ benefits on Wall Street.
So now, when Nan Hayworth says:
Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.”
Narrator
We know exactly what she means.
The DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

We know exactly what Dems mean. It leaves little doubts. A war on babies has been transformed into some Republican “war on women”.

In another ad, a Democat is praised as an “advocate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet the same candidate claims to stand against special interests — “reducing the influence of special interests”.

Being considered radical or extreme for pro-life positions is how far, or low, we’ve come.
War on humanity anyone? What if the 50 million plus cast their votes?
What’s your definition of radical?

RightRing | Bullright

Aborted justice

Federal judge halts key part of Texas abortion law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge Friday threw out new Texas abortion restrictions that would have effectively closed more than a dozen clinics statewide in a victory for opponents of tough new anti-abortion laws sweeping across the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel sided with clinics that sued over one of the most disputed measures of a sweeping anti-abortion bill signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2013. The ruling stops new clinic requirements that would have left seven abortion facilities in Texas come Monday, when the law was set to take effect.

The ruling blocks a portion of the that law would have required abortion facilities in Texas to meet hospital-level operating standards, which supporters say will protect women’s health. But Yeakel concluded the intent was only to “close existing licensed abortion clinics.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who is the favorite to become governor next year, vowed to seek an immediate appeal to try to preserve the new clinic rules. Clinics called the measures a backdoor effort to outlaw abortions, which has been a constitutional right since the Roe v. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

http://www.mail.com/news/politics/3069204-federal-judge-halts-key-texas-abortion-law.html#.7518-stage-hero1-2

The death culture will be happy about that. It seems all it takes is an activist judge. I don’t know where in law it says there must be an abortion provider X distance away? They don’t want any regulations or restrictions on abortion.

Also an update link here.

Gosnell move over, we’re from the government…

Full Disclosure: Did Government’s Experiment on Preemies Hide Risks?

Sharyl Attkisson / @SharylAttkisson / June 03, 2014

 

Just 25 weeks into her pregnancy, Sharrissa Cook gave birth to a critically ill baby boy. Dreshan weighed in at a fragile 1 pound, 11 ounces. He lay motionless in the incubator, connected to tubes and monitors in the neonatal intensive care unit at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital.

“He was so tiny,” Cook recalls. “I was a first-time mom. I didn’t have a clue. I didn’t know what to expect.”

It was Oct. 11, 2006. Medical personnel asked Cook, then a 26-year-old single mother, to enroll little Dreshan in a study. She says they described it as a program offering assistance and encouragement to preemies—premature babies—and their families. She readily signed the consent form.

“I remember them telling me they were a support group who would pretty much hold my hand through the developmental process,” Cook says.

But in reality, the study was much more than that. It was a national, government-funded experiment on 1,316 extremely premature infants in which their fate may as well have rested with the flip of a coin.

Other single moms who were among those persuaded to sign up their critically ill babies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital describe similar misunderstandings of the study’s purpose.

Bernita Lewis, then a 22-year-old student, says she enrolled her premature newborn, Christian, after medical personnel told her it simply was to gather data such as weight and height.

And Survonda Banks, then 21, unemployed and on public assistance, says someone handed her the consent form on her way in for an emergency C-section at 28 weeks of pregnancy. Banks remembers being told only that it was a way to help her baby, Destiny.

‘Parents Were Misled’

The government-backed study is called SUPPORT, which stands for “Surfactant, Positive Airway Pressure, and Pulse Oximetry Randomized Trial.” The experiment was conducted at 23 academic institutions from 2005 through 2009 under the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

All three women now say they never would have agreed to take part if they had known the NIH-funded study’s true nature—to randomly manipulate preemie oxygen levels. They discovered that just last year.

Dreshan and Christian are now 7 years old and both struggle with myriad health problems. Destiny died within three weeks. The mothers wonder: Did the experiment contribute to any of the medical problems of their children?

“[Dreshan] was already at a slim chance of surviving; why would I make his chances of surviving more slim?” Cook asks.

The NIH-funded experiment used the test babies in an attempt to find the sweet spot for preemies yet to be born: the lowest level of oxygen that would preserve vision, yet be sufficient to prevent brain damage and death.

To get the answer, researchers arbitrarily assigned infants to either a high-oxygen or low-oxygen group.

Playing Russian roulette’

In some instances, the results proved both disturbing and tragic.

More of the high-oxygen babies ended up with serious vision disorders. The low-oxygen preemies were more likely to die. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2010, sparked ethical questions and complaints. Companion studies being conducted in other countries were halted.

Read full article: http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/03/uninformed-consent-nih-sacrifice-preemies-sake-research/

Part 2: Full Disclosure: ‘Input’ Stalls Agency’s Ethics Probe in Baby Oxygen Trials

Pressure from government officials and eminent researchers appears to have pushed a federal agency to postpone enforcement action on violations it found in a government-financed experiment on extremely premature babies.

The agency, which polices ethics in health studies, says the controversy over the study of preemies highlights a “fundamental difference between the obligations of clinicians and those of researchers.”

That ethics body, called the Office for Human Research Protections, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The sponsor of the controversial experiment, the National Institutes of Health, is also part of HHS. Officials at both HHS and NIH provided “input” leading to the office’s delay in enforcement.

Gov vs. Gov

The entire dispute might be little more than an academic debate if it weren’t for one crucial factor: The Office for Human Research Protections, the ethics body within HHS, ruled that the consent process for the study violated federal regulations designed to protect human research subjects.

Part 3: Full Disclosure: Parents Fault Medical Research Study for Putting Preemies in Harm’s Way

Thanks to Just Gene, H/T for the article.
“HE’S BAAAAAAAAAAK, THIS TIME AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”

Tradition bites the dust on campus

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

Marriage at Notre Dame: From sacrament to sacrilege

Diana West covers university’s rejection of traditionalist student group
WND

The National Catholic Register broke the most shocking cultural news of the week:

“A group of students at the University of Notre Dame has generated a campus-wide controversy by advocating that marriage between one woman and one man is better suited for children than same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Welcome to campus controversy 2014, where the subversives are traditionalists and, as we will see, the subversives control the establishment.

The Register continued:

“The group – known as Students for Child Oriented Policy (SCOP) – elicited negative letters to the campus newspaper and prompted hundreds of students to sign a petition calling upon the university not to recognize it as an official campus club.”

What comes next may not be surprising, but it remains gasp-worthy: Notre Dame refused to recognize the group favoring what we now know as “traditional marriage” as an official campus club. Why? The administration offered a thin excuse, saying the new club would duplicate the mission of two other campus groups that promote Catholic doctrine – one of which, it turns out, hasn’t updated its website since 2005. Meanwhile, according to SCOP’s prospective president, Tiernan Kane, his group doesn’t identify itself with a specifically Catholic mission, coming together instead as a non-sectarian effort to “focus on public policy as it relates to issues that specifically affect children.”

The Register reported that planned club activities would have included “presentations on Common Core and Indiana education policy, marijuana’s effect on young people’s brains, the United Kingdom’s anti-pornography policy and the problems associated with no-fault divorce.” The club’s position that traditional marriage is good policy is what drew campus fire.

Diana West’s latest book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” reveals jaw-dropping stories of treason you’ve never heard

There’s a lot here, so let’s take it from the top. First, we have just learned that on the campus of one of the leading Catholic universities in the country, the concept of same-sex marriage isn’t just popular, it’s entrenched to the point where it is controversial to prefer the traditional model – even to argue that heterosexual marriage is better social policy for children. In fact, the belief that a child is better off with a mother and a father rather than two mothers or two fathers is so unpopular that 630 students signed their names on a petition to prevent it from being promoted by an official campus club. […/]

Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/marriage-at-notre-dame-from-sacrament-to-sacrilege/

As she eloquently points out, it is not so much that they disagree but the strength of disagreement to the point of silencing. And to do it in such unified lockstep that what once stood for principle is replaced by that which is driven by pure political correctness and ideology. Politics trumps tradition.

This was evident in the great Notre Dame protest in May, 2009. That’s when Notre Dame requested Obama come to speak, offering him a coveted honorary degree. Okay, but that was not their only offense. To understand Notre Dame’s heritage as a Catholic University is to understand the values consistent with that heritage. Chief among them is the issue of life which was foremost to many protestors. However, what happened in that process was what really outraged people, students and alumni.

It would be a given that protestors would come out against giving Obama such honorary status, as the most pro-abortion president that we’ve had. But the wrath of the University came down on the protestors. They tried to shut them down and had many protestors arrested and charged. Charges which pended long after the event.

Barack Obama did speak and received his doctorate. The university explained at the time that it was in the spirit of tolerance and diversity of opinion that it invited and honored him. Okay, but the intolerance and prosecution of protestors never dawned on them. See, they can use diversity and tolerance as convenient rationale, but then use outright silencing or banning techniques to suit political correctness.

CNN May, 2009

Addressing a sharply divided audience at the storied Catholic university, Obama conceded that no matter how much Americans “may want to fudge it … at some level the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

The commencement ceremony was boycotted by a number of graduates dismayed by the university’s decision both to tap Obama as its commencement speaker and to give him an honorary degree.

The president is a supporter of abortion rights and federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research — positions that are anathema to traditional Catholic teachings.

Note his words when he knew the controversy he created. He actually says views are irreconcilable but lectures (others presumably) not to reduce differing views to caricatures. Homophobes or “Bible thumpers” anyone? No, that is exactly what the left does patently when disagreeing with someone or a group who does not swallow their view. And they declare the “debate is over”. All following the same Alinsky tactics Obama practices.

Now we see in this episode those tactics in full display again, against the very traditions America was founded on. Have we moved that far from our social mores that we now repel anything related to our traditions? Those social mores cannot coexist with their agenda, in the Left’s world….and they aren’t meant to. The progressive Left is married to the political agenda, making their political correctness even worse, and renders all outside it obsolete.

So Obama’s words were just as disingenuous as ever. But it’s the Left who has reduced anything and everyone else to caricatures. Yet he is wrong again because on all levels the left is intolerant of views, not just on “some level”. But this is par for Obama to caution people against politicizing something while actively politicizing it himself.

RightRing | Bullright

Peru: sterilization charges dropped on fmr President

Hadn’t seen this till now, from months ago. Plus a look back at golden years. (as some view them)

Fujimori cleared in sterilization case

AP Frank Bajak conntributed to this report | January 25, 2014

Alberto Fujimori at Andrews Air Force Base in 1998 Wikipedia

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Peruvian prosecutors say they have dropped a criminal investigation against former President Alberto Fujimori and health ministers who served under him over a 1990s mass sterilization program under which thousands of women say they were forcibly sterilized.

The probe had been re-opened in 2011 under pressure from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. But in a statement Friday, prosecutor Marco Guzman said he had shelved the inquiry against Fujimori and 26 former high-ranking officials after deciding that no crime against humanity had been committed.

Sigfredo Florian, a lawyer representing the victims, said they would appeal and referred to the forced sterilization case of Mamerita Mestanza. “Only four low-ranking provincial doctors have been accused in the 1998 death of the peasant Mestanza,” Florian said. “And not taken into account were the 140 volumes of evidence from the complaints of the other 2,074 peasant women” who say their tubal ligations were coerced.

Mestanza, a 33-year-old mother of seven, died in 1996 after being pressured into the surgery. Peru had agreed to pay more than $100,000 to Mestanza’s survivors and guarantee her children free education through high school as well as free medical care. But the Inter-American commission, dissatisfied that the settlement was not honored, pressed for a criminal probe.

Fujimori, now imprisoned for corruption and authorizing death squads, claims the sterilizations from 1995 to 2000 of more than 300,000 mostly poor, illiterate indigenous women were voluntary. The women say they were deceived, browbeaten, threatened with jail, bribed with food parcels and otherwise pressured into the operations to meet program quotas.

Activists say that besides being forced, the sterilizations were often carried out in unsanitary conditions. They documented 18 cases of women who, like Mestanza, died of infections shortly after surgery.

Mestanza had been told she needed to be sterilized because women who gave birth to more than seven children were being imprisoned, according to the settlement. In the annals of government-sanctioned involuntary sterilizations, Peru’s appear to be among the biggest in modern history, also affecting nearly 25,000 men.

Fujimori boasted that it dropped Peru’s birth rate from 3.7 children per woman in 1990 to 2.7 children a decade later. Officials of Fujimori’s government claimed any excesses were the fault of overzealous local medical authorities. But the program was so controversial that the U.S. Congress cut aid payments to Peru that had been used to fund the program.

After Fujimori’s government fell in a 2000 corruption scandal, lawmakers initially recommended genocide charges against the president. That probe was shelved in 2009 after prosecutors determined the statute of limitations had run out on the alleged crimes of serious bodily injury and manslaughter.

Reproductive rights activists claimed, however, that the sterilizations constituted a crime against humanity due to their scale and systematic nature.

 

This took place in the 1990’s and all these years later they decide ‘not enough evidence’ and drop the charges. Sounds suspicious considering the scale. So this was going on while Clinton was in office. Better yet, we had an aid program that even funded it.

There were sterilizations from 1995 to 2000 of more than 300,000 women. But that wasn’t so bad and and they see no crimes here. Nothing to see.

From Wikipedia: (had support, including that American aide funding)

The 1991 Barrios Altos massacre by members of the death squad Grupo Colina, made up of members of the Peruvian Armed Forces, was one of the crimes cited in the request for his extradition submitted by the Peruvian government to Japan in 2003.

From 1996 to 2000, the Fujimori government oversaw a massive family planning campaign known as Voluntary Surgical Contraception. The United Nations and other international aid agencies supported this campaign. The Nippon Foundation, headed by Ayako Sono, a Japanese novelist and personal friend of Fujimori, supported as well. Nearly 300,000, mostly indigenous, women were coercively or forcefully sterilized during these years.

This illustrates the evils of celebrated contraception and birth control programs. At least he was charged on death squads and corruption. Yet while the forced sterilization program was in full force, it received funding from the US and glowing support of the UN.

He is still serving 25 years for death squads and corruption. But sterilization charges and the government enforcers are off the hook.

Although rife with corruption and politics resembling third world class, he was credited with economic reforms and continues to have a popular following. Interesting that his administration played out while Clinton was in office. Clintons benefited from the economy and Republicans’ fiscal policies, and still enjoyed popularity despite all the scandals and their brand of politics. Even now many people nostalgically look back at the golden Clinton years. There are some parallels.

RightRing | Bullright

What do you know….

Congressman Blasts Democrat Group For Supporting Terrorists

Democrats still signing MoveOn petition supporting group after 230 girls kidnapped for sexual slavery

Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) — May 9, 2014 | Western Journalism

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman Friday asked Democrat-aligned group MoveOn.org to apologize for hosting an online petition opposing a terrorist designation for Boko Haram.

“Boko Haram has murdered thousands and kidnapped hundreds of little girls to sell into sexual slavery. It is beyond despicable for Democrat Party groups to support a terrorist organization,” said Stockman. “The Democrat Party group MoveOn should apologize for hosting supporters of kidnappers and terrorists.”

The petition, “Reject ‘Terrorist’ Designation for Boko Haram” was posted in 2012 and began gaining more signatures from Democrat Party activists after the group kidnapped 230 Nigerian girls to sell into sexual slavery.

It demands the Obama administration “not to support the formal designation of Boko Haram in Nigeria as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’ (FTO).” The Obama administration, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group, even after it bombed United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria in 2011. The group was finally designated a FTO in November 2013.

MoveOn is one of the biggest bankrollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012. 100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats.

In 2007, the group ran a full-page ad in the New York Times accusing General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, of being a traitor to the United States for supporting an increase in the number of troops in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise.

Police discover 7 dead babies in Garage

Police in Utah found seven dead babies in garage.

Police seek answers after 7 dead babies found in home

    Woman accused of killing seven babies

    This photo provided by the Utah County jail shows Megan Huntsman, who was booked into the Utah County jail on suspicion of killing six of her newborn children over the past decade. Seven dead babies were found in a garage at a Pleasant Grove home where Huntsman lived up until 2011. (AP Photo/Utah County Jail) Courtesy Utah County Jail

See article

The Hobby Lobby take away

This is one of the best takes I’ve seen on the Hobby Lobby case.

By Judie Brown

Lent is about halfway through, and we draw nearer to the day when Our Lord gave His life to save us from our sins. Yet our society daily tempts us to draw closer and embrace those sins. In fact, it is doing almost everything in its power to discard morality and God, as evidenced in today’s commentary.

Many analyses have been published following the oral arguments delivered last Tuesday to the United States Supreme Court on the two cases Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.The cases revolve around the fundamental question of whether or not a Christian company/business may or may not reflect Christian principles in its employment and other business practices. The particular subject of debate in this matter is the provision of contraceptive/abortion insurance coverage for employees when such coverage is a violation of the corporate principles of the company in question.

Can the government bully the Christian employer or not?

Apparently Family Research Council’s Cathy Ruse got the answer when she was in the Supreme Court gallery during the oral arguments. She tells of an exchange between Justice Anthony Kennedy and Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “When Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes.”

The government’s position may be downright diabolical to many of us, but Jeffrey Mirus, Ph.D. explains it handily: “The old natural law tradition of the West-in which rational consistency and fairness were perhaps the most easily-grasped components-has given way to the sovereignty of the human will to remake reality according to whatever happens to be desired by those who have political, social, and cultural power.”

And that’s the rub, isn’t it? The coalescing of such man-made power united behind the common goal of tossing God out and bringing the evils of sexual promiscuity in was bound to have results similar to the Obama contraceptive mandate. It’s been building to this for years, after all.

During the same week as the oral arguments were heard, other signs of this political, social, and cultural power grab were evident in another part of the country. The University of Michigan’s Women’s Studies Department and the Institute for Research on Women and Gender are sponsoring a spring exhibit entitled “4,000 Years of Choice: A Graphic Guide to Reproductive Justice.” Among messages the exhibit imparts to visiting students is that the act of aborting a child is “a life-sustaining act.” Or to put it another way, the expectant mother who kills her child is enhancing and sustaining her own life, even if that goal costs another’s life in the process.

This twisted perspective represents reinvented reality.

It would seem that the world has gone mad. And still the list of horrors grows. For instance, we read that in Great Britain bodies of aborted babies are burned with the trash to heat modern hospitals. And in America Planned Parenthood is poised to call abortion “miscarriage management” if and when abortion itself is ever outlawed.

But in the midst of the carnage we can be buoyed by understanding the power of the human will to choose that which is rational and true rather than that which is self-serving and deceitful. Dr. Mirus puts it this way:

    “The will darkens the intellect by ordering it to cease its independent explorations in order to serve what the will desires. This is not something that we can expect to counteract naturally; it is in fact the mechanism which human nature uses to refuse cooperation with grace. Yet paradoxically the pandemic loss of the recognition of reason, and even of nature itself, must be remedied by grace. And so, in the midst of growing suffering and sacrifice for Catholics, it is not only arguments and creativity that we need, but prayer.”

The use of political power to deconstruct Christianity does have an antidote. Let us use it.

© Judie Brown

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/brown/140401