Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

31 January 2011

Knoxville diocese teams up with mom to fight Planned Parenthood ‘abstinence’ class

by Kathleen Gilbert

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee, January 27, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Diocese of Knoxville has teamed up with a local mom to spread awareness of a Planned Parenthood “abstinence” class that one teen said taught anything but.

Kym McCormick learned of Planned Parenthood’s teaching material after her daughter Alaynna, a student at Hardin Valley Academy, came home last October in tears over the material presented in the class.

“I’m tired of everyone treating us like animals who can’t control themselves,” Alaynna told her mother, according to an East Tennessee Catholic News (ECTN) report. McCormick’s outrage increased after she discovered extremely explicit material directed at teens on Planned Parenthood’s website.

“Very clearly [on one of the Planned Parenthood websites], it says, ‘There is no right or wrong time to become sexually active.’ And a little bit further down, it says, ‘There are no right or wrong answers to these questions,’” Mrs. McCormick told the Catholic newspaper. “I think there are a lot of parents who believe there are right and wrong answers.”

Planned Parenthood’s website, in addition to giving explicit details on masturbation and anal sex, admonishes parents to “give babies a sense of themselves, their sexuality, and their bodies from birth” and to teach children starting at seven years old that “that people experience sexual pleasure in a number of different ways.”

McCormick said her daughter complained that a class purported to discuss abstinence, but “not one time did they say anything about abstinence.” ECTN reports that one element of Planned Parenthood’s abstinence program is to describe “outercourse” — which encompasses virtually all forms of sexual contact short of intercourse. McCormick said her attempts to discuss the material with Knox County high school officials have often been ignored.

The diocese announced it would host a meeting Thursday where Alaynna would share information on Planned Parenthood’s program - of which her parents had been given no prior notice. A Metro Pulse report claimed that a member of the school’s faculty forgot to send home the parental notification letters for the class, taught as part of the state’s required Lifetime Wellness curriculum.

Ginny Winters, a community health educator for Planned Parenthood’s Knoxville office, told Metro Pulse that Planned Parenthood is “absolutely not promoting sex” and claimed the sophomore girl was merely upset that the class controverted information she had been taught on natural family planning.

Knoxville Bishop Richard F. Stika has written mayor Bill Haslam expressing his opposition to the abortion giant’s teaching presence, calling their curriculum “a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize and promote its deadly agenda.”

30 January 2011

How the Scientific Consensus can hinder Science

Source

How the Scientific Consensus can hinder Science Intelligent Design is repeatedly dismissed by its critics as being unscientific. Many who make this assertion are not suggesting that it has no empirical data to support its claims but rather that it is completely outside the realm of science. This is because of a narrow definition of science that has been developed. What is scientific, according to this definition, is a matter of ongoing debate. Google “problem of demarcation” and you will get some idea of the extent of this discussion and the difficulty of determining where the parameters should be set.

Others, of course, who dismiss ID do so because they believe that it has no merit. Whether this is based on their philosophical prejudice or their scientific convictions can be hard to tell but they are utterly dismissive and refuse to treat ID seriously. A quick glance at the comments posted in response to ID articles will illustrate the derisory attitude and the scorn that is heaped upon those who dare to hold a different opinion.

Consensus says ID is not science

The Centre for Intelligent Design is well aware that the scientific consensus does not accept ID as science. That is the reason for our existence. It is our purpose to challenge the lines of demarcation that currently prevail. These are not constant and have changed throughout the history of science and should continue to change as our understanding develops. The Centre for Intelligent Design wants to move beyond the mocking contempt that is often expressed and have the empirical data properly considered.

Galileo and scientific consensus

Scientific consensus sometimes get so entrenched that it becomes a hindrance rather than a help to the advancement of science. Galileo Galilei had a bit of a run in with the consensus and concluded, “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”. His scepticism of consensus is understandable when you consider the way in which he was treated.

Sadly, Galileo is not the only one to have had his ideas dismissed by the scientific consensus. In 1847 Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that disinfection of the hands significantly reduced the incidence of puerperal fever in obstetric clinics. Puerperal fever was the single most common cause of maternal mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the scientific consensus did not accept Semmelweis’ empirical evidence but dismissed his findings, often with contempt. He did not accord with the established opinion of the day and was considered by some to have no scientific basis for his claims. Others were insulted by the idea that their hands were being described as “dirty”. It was also pointed out that Semmelweis was saying nothing new. In 1843 Oliver Wendell Holmes, had published an essay on the contagiousness of puerperal fever but his views were attacked by the scientific establishment. Sadder still is the fact that in 1795, Dr. Alexander Gordon had published a paper on the contagious nature of puerperal fever and the importance of the right hygiene practices in order to prevent its spread. His paper acknowledged the strong opposition he confronted and the attempts to suppress the truth.

How many lives could have been saved if the scientific consensus had not been so stubborn? Nobody in the scientific establishment today would dare to describe the findings of Gordon, Holmes or Semmelweiss as stupid but it was not always so.

USA Epidemic of Pellagra

Between 1906 and 1940 there was an epidemic of pellagra in the United States with some 3,000,000 cases reported and 100,000 deaths. In 1915 Dr. Joseph Goldberger discovered the cause to be directly linked to poor diet but his empirical evidence was vilified by those who were persuaded the disease was caused by infection. The scientific consensus said no! They leaked some of his secret research to the news media and then impugned his motives. For 25 years an epidemic continued that could have been prevented and offers of federal help from the President were refused. There were major political and social implications involved but surely the scientific establishment were not influenced by these? Perhaps you might investigate the issue yourself to judge whether or not the scientific consensus is ever influenced by factors outside of empirical data.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra for more details of this disease and also the image at the end of this article.

USA Symposium opposes Continental Drift

On January 6th 1912, Alfred Wegener presented his hypothesis on Continental Drift but the scientific consensus was unimpressed. He was unable to support his circumstantial evidence with a specific mechanism that explained it. He speculated that centrifugal force might be responsible or the astronomical precession. In spite of the opposition of the scientific consensus he continued to develop his ideas and a symposium was specifically organised in the United States in opposition to his hypothesis. In 1943 the noted palaeontologist George Gaylord Simpson strongly attacked Wegener’s position in the American Journal of Science and this influenced those who had been sympathetic to change their views. Once again the scientific establishment backed the wrong man. Wegener’s inability to posit the right physical mechanism did not mean that his hypothesis was wrong, but it was the primary reason the consensus was against him. In addition he committed the cardinal crime of not actually being an expert. Wegener was not a geologist so his evidence apparently lacked authority.

It's not the empirical data

The history of science is littered with occasions when the scientific consensus has wrongly challenged the minority voice and in so doing has impeded the progress of science. Obviously any scientific theory has got to be robust enough to withstand the most detailed scrutiny and inquisition. However, the examples cited demonstrate that time and again the problem was not with the empirical evidence. Closed minds, personal offence, political and social constraints have all played their part in preventing proper consideration of the data. This was then exacerbated by the way professional credibility was questioned, motives were misrepresented and individuals were vilified.

Peer Review

Although Intelligent Design theory is not accepted by the scientific consensus, its proponents are often asked to list the peer reviewed articles that are in its favour. While there are in fact some such papers, contrary to critics’ claims, the reason that there are not more will be obvious to any intelligent reader. The scientific establishment has not always proved itself to be in open and objective pursuit of empirical evidence. The US Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow determined that the peer review process could be flawed in certain circumstances. Research by Rothwell and Martyn also raised questions about the credibility of the process and Casadevall and Fang, though offering no sympathy to ID acknowledge, “In fact studies of peer review have identified numerous problems, including confirmatory bias, bias against negative results, favoritism for established investigators in a given field, address bias, gender bias, and ideological orientation”.

US Communist Leader Urges Unification With Democratic Party

Posted by Jim Hoft

Most of us saw this coming. In fact, most of us already thought the democrats were a socialst party. (Aren’t they?) In fact, socialists marched into the left-wing’s One Nation” rally in October chanting: “Obama aint no socialist! We are! We are!”

So this may not come as a surprise to many of you… But it is significant.
The leader of the Communist Party USA is telling his supporters to unite with democrats.
P/O’ed Patriot posted this today from the Communist People’s World:

People’s multi-racial, multi-ethnic unity and action at a higher level is of critical importance if the assault under way at local, state and federal levels is to be slowed down and then reversed.

While this assault has bipartisan elements, right-wing extremism is leading the charge and one has to be careful not to lump everybody together.

Each legislative fight has to be examined concretely with an eye to drawing to the side of working people every possible ally in this unprecedented struggle, including sections of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration.

Out of frustration it is easy to put both parties in one boat regardless of circumstances, but that is a strategic and tactical mistake. Struggles that could be won will be lost if this strategy and tactic is pursued, and defeats that could be mitigated will turn into momentous setbacks.

Working people fight on an unfavorable terrain at this moment and are unable to dictate the agenda and terms of struggle. In these conditions, broad unity and reach is essential.

This situation probably won’t change until 2012, and then it depends on that election’s outcome. In the meantime, it will take practical mass initiatives, a sound strategy, tactical flexibility, and common sense to turn things around!

It should be an easy fit.

What The Heck Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Source

-By Warner Todd Huston

Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?

Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.

These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.

Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.

The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.

Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.

Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.

Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?


29 January 2011

Allen West Reacts to Olbermann Departure

The horror of abortion

January 28, 2011 (Breakpoint.com) - The statistic has everyone reeling: According to a recent survey, forty-one percent of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. Forty-one percent. Nearly half.

As you might expect, pro-lifers are deeply concerned, and already trying to find ways to bring that number down. Archbishop Timothy Dolan to name one, called a news conference to say that the church would be stepping up its efforts to encourage and help women in crisis pregnancies.

But pro-choicers weren’t too excited about this news either. The New York Times—hardly a pro-life bastion—reported, “No one is exactly celebrating. . . . Even abortion rights advocates expressed some concern about the numbers, trying to change the conversation to a broader one on reproductive health.”

The Times noted that the easy access to abortion makes the city a “magnet . . . for doctors who wish to practice without restrictions [and] for women who want to live in an atmosphere of sexual self-determination.”

Those are, of course, noble and laudable desires according to the pro-choice folks. And yet the tone of the article is distinctly uneasy. It quotes late-term abortionist Dr. Robert Berg, who says his patients tend to be “hostile” to him, treating him like “a punching bag” even though he’s providing a service that they’ve asked for.

If abortion is a morally neutral medical procedure, as the pro-choicers would have us believe, why all the angst coming from people who are getting abortions? I think it all comes back to what J. Budziszewski calls “what we can’t not know.”

Why would a woman be angry at an abortionist? Because he is about to kill her child, and any woman knows that is wrong. She can’t help but know it. None of us can. It’s one of the deepest truths written on our hearts—that human life is sacred, and destroying an innocent life in the womb is one of the most violent acts imaginable.

The recent arrest of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia dragged that ugly truth into the spotlight. Gosnell ran a “house of horrors” where babies were slaughtered with scissors, where some of their mothers died as well, and where some of the babies’ body parts were kept in jars.

The nation was horrified—but why? Late-term abortions often involve killing babies with scissors—the only difference is that it’s usually done as the baby is still emerging from the birth canal, not after it’s all the way out. Some difference.

But when Gosnell made the news, we were all reminded of what we can’t not know—that it’s wrong to kill babies in this way, or in any other way.

Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer, has written that the grand jury report on Gosnell may become the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of the pro-life movement. I hope he’s right. It’s tragic that it takes something as drastic as a baby’s foot in a jar, or a 41 percent abortion rate in a major city, to remind everybody that abortion is an unjustifiable travesty.

But when we see even pro-choicers getting upset about these things, then we know that the truth is written on their hearts just as it is on ours.

May the day quickly come when they can no longer ignore it.

This article reprinted with permission from www.breakpoint.org

Anti-Violence Activist Beats Up Woman

Source

Posted by Van Helsing

It's better to practice what liberals preach, because only an imam would be barbaric enough to preach what some of them practice. For example, the "prime mover" of We Stop the Killings can't always be sermonizing about the evils of violence; sometimes he has to let off a little steam by pounding on women in front of babies:

Warren Jackson was charged with a misdemeanor count of domestic battery, said the Cook County State's Attorney's office.
Tinley Park Police were called to the Burlington Coat Factory at about 8:23 p.m. Jan. 21 after another shopper reported walking out of the store and seeing a man hitting a woman inside a car parked in the fire lane in front of the store, according to a police report.
The shopper reported seeing the man remove a toddler from the car and put him back in the front passenger seat of the vehicle before turning around from the driver's seat and punching a woman in the back seat, police said. The shopper told police she ran inside to call for help and when she exited again the car had relocated to a different part of the parking lot where the man continued to attack the woman, police said.

When the cops arrived,

The child was sitting in the front seat of the car without a child's safety seat, and the woman was in the back seat of the car with cuts on her face, police said.

Warren has had trouble with the law before:

Jackson is the subject of a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office Dec. 2 seeking to shut down the Chicago-based organization We Stop the Killings, saying it is operating illegally while soliciting charitable donations.
The lawsuit seeks to stop Jackson and five others associated with the organization's website, westopthekillings.org, from managing a charitable organization in Illinois. The suit says the group solicited donations and falsely claimed the money would fund efforts to curb youth violence in Chicago.

Corruption, deception, hypocrisy, and bogus sanctimony in the city that gave us the Moonbat Messiah? Please say it isn't so.

warren-jackson.jpg Warren Jackson "is richly committed to creating solutions that assist with the issues of violence among today's youth."


San Diego firefighters victorious in suit against forced participation in gay pride parade

SAN DIEGO, California, January 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Four California firefighters forced to participate in a gay pride parade in July 2007 are victorious after the California Supreme Court this week refused to hear the city’s petition to review an appellate court decision last year.

The four men, led by Fire Capt. John Ghiotto of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, filed the suit against the city of San Diego for sexual harassment a month after a battalion chief directly ordered them to ride a fire engine in a lewd parade through the city streets. The men endured verbal abuse and come-ons, as well as overtly sexual gestures from the crowd.

“You could not even look at the crowd without getting some type of sexual gesture,” stated the original complaint, which noted that Christian protesters reviled them for joining the parade. Had the men refused, Ghiotto noted, the men risked being immediately suspended and stripped of any chance of promotion.

“As a supervisor I felt disgusted and embarrassed, that I had to subject my crew to this type of behavior.”

An initial trial ended in a hung jury in September 2008, before a jury sided with the firefighters the following February. After the San Diego attorney’s office appealed, the firefighters won again in October of last year, when the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued a ruling strongly in their favor.

Charles LiMandri, the general counsel for the California branch of the National Organization for Marriage who represented the firefighters, told LifeSiteNews.com that his clients were “delighted” with the outcome.

“It’s an important case because it shows that if Christian or people of faith generally are willing to stand up for their religious beliefs, and refuse to be bullied by secular agendas, that they do have rights that can and should be enforced in court,” said LiMandri. “In this case those rights were upheld.”

LiMandri said that it also “sends a strong message to people about what these gay pride parades are really like.”

Canadian Blood Services seeks end to gay donor ban

by Rebecca Millette

OTTAWA, January 27, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A spokesperson for the Canadian Blood Services (CBS), the federal blood donor agency, told the Toronto Star yesterday that the lifetime ban on homosexual men donating blood is outdated and needs to be loosened.

The ban was put in place in 1985 after the Canadian Red Cross, in charge of the blood supply at the time, failed to properly screen donors. The result was that thousands of Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood.

The Public Health Agency of Canada reported in 2008 that homosexual men as a group had by far the highest rate of new HIV infections, 44%, and that 51% of people with HIV in the country were homosexual men.

“A lifetime ban extending by one year every year is just not sustainable,” Lorna Tessier, director of public relations at Canadian Blood Services, told the Star.

Tessier said that CBS is committed to working actively to shorten the current ban and find a more “appropriate restriction” to homosexual men donating blood after having sex with another man (‘MSM’).

CBS reportedly plans to conduct research with a $500,000 grant administered by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and to approach Health Canada for permission to loosen the ban.

“There have been lots of changes in the environment, lots of changes in testing (and) lots of changes on the international front,” said Tessier. “We are committed. There is definitely no doubt about that.”

However, all challenges to the ban have been thus far rejected. The ban made national news last spring and summer in the court case between homosexual Kyle Freeman and CBS.

CBS had previously sued Freeman for lying about his homosexual conduct in a pre-screening process and giving blood despite the lifetime ban. Freeman launched a counter-suit against CBS saying the ban on ‘MSM’ giving blood discriminates against homosexuals and he has a right to give blood under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In September 2010 an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision upheld the ban in the case of Freeman, saying giving blood is not a constitutional right. “It is based on health and safety considerations; namely, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne, sexually transmitted pathogens in the [men who have sex with men] populations, and the corresponding risk this creates for the safety of the blood supply system,” the judge ruled.

The court also noted that the Charter of Rights does not apply to the blood agency’s policies, because it is not a government entity.

Following the case, CBS chief executive officer Dr. Graham Sher praised the decision. “It is important to understand, and as the judge affirmed, our donor selection policies have always been about protecting the safety of blood recipients, and the [‘MSM’] policy is no exception.”

Gwen Landolt, vice-president and spokesperson for Canada’s REAL Women, told LifeSiteNews.com that CBS is “spinning the wheel for no reason.” “There has been no proof that people will be safe,” she said.

“It is going to cause a lot of confusion and a lot of problems with the public. Certainly it will undermine the credibility of the blood services. Who wants to give blood and who wants to take it when you’re so uncertain of the safety?”

Today the Canadian Hemophilia Society (CHS) issued a news release that expressed concern about the direction CBS was taking. CHS said that while they found that “blood, blood products and their alternatives are very safe and in sufficient supply,” CBS has taken a “giant step backwards” in accountability over the past year.

CBS by-laws, CHS reported, state CBS boards must have at least two positions filled by persons with “relevant knowledge or experience with organizations representing persons consuming blood and blood products.” In the past, these positions have been held by persons with “very close links to recipient organizations and extensive knowledge of safety and supply issues.”

However, the 2009 and 2010 Board renewal processes saw public directors named who have “no apparent links to recipient organizations and little knowledge of key issues from a recipient perspective,” according to CHS.

The organization said that the 2010 decision upholding the ban on ‘MSM’ blood donors “was welcomed by recipient organizations,” and that as a result of that decision, “decisions on screening procedures will continue to be made on the basis of the latest science and epidemiology.”

Xtra, Canada’s Gay and Lesbian News, reported today that CBS is now “backtracking” on the Toronto Star’s report.

Media coverage saying CBS wants to lift its homosexual blood donor deferral is not news, blood bank spokesperson Ron Vezina told Xtra.

“There is no change. It’s exactly what we said during the Freeman trial. We’re continuing down the same path. When the judge said a 33-year ban is unsustainable, we couldn’t agree more. But we need evidence to what we should change it to. Until we have an alternative, we’re stuck with it,” said Vezina.

LifeSiteNews.com did not hear back from the Canadian Blood Service before press time.

To contact the Canadian blood collection agency with your concern:

Canadian Blood Services
1800 Alta Vista Drive,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 4J5
Phone: (613) 739-2300
Fax: (613) 731-1411
Email: feedback@blood.ca

Several Links

Nigeria: Machete-Wielding Muslims Hack Six Christians to Death

Source

More religious cleansing of Christians from their homelands.

JOS, Nigeria (AP) Authorities say machete-wielding attackers have killed six people in two attacks on Christian villages in central Nigeria.

The attacks occurred Sunday night south of Jos with attackers armed with machetes and firearms targeting two Christian villages.

Violence between Christians and Muslims has claimed more than 500 lives over the last year in Jos and surrounding areas.

Officials say the raid was in retaliation for a New Year’s Eve attack on a van full of Muslims returning from a wedding that left at least eight people dead.

Christian resisted nacional socialism

Source


German judge Lothar Kreyssig, who risked everything to oppose the Nazi T4 euthanasia program.

January 24, 2011 (Breakpoint.org) - You have probably never heard of Lothar Kreyssig—I hadn’t until recently. Yet, after hearing his story, I realized Kreyssig was a hero for our times: a man whom, at almost unbelievable risk, stood up for the sanctity of human life.

In October, 1939, the Third Reich created what came to be known as the “Action T4” program. In furtherance of what the Nazis called “racial hygiene,” Reich bureaucrats, working with doctors, were authorized to identify and kill those deemed to be “unworthy of life,” that is, institutionalized patients with “severe disabilities.”

Of course, expressions like “unworthy” and even “severe” are subjective. In reality, they were a license for mass murder. Hitler called for at least 70,000 people to be killed under this program, so doctors and officials set about meeting the Fuhrer’s quotas.

Fearing domestic and international reaction, the Nazis tried to hide what was going on: they lied to patients’ families and, fore-shadowing Auschwitz, they disguised the gas chambers as showers.

When I think of what happened to those people, especially the children—some like my autistic grandson, Max—it breaks my heart—horrifies me.

The Nazis also took pains to provide a patina of legality to the murders: Hitler personally ordered German judges not to prosecute doctors for killing their patients. And that’s where Kreyssig comes in: He was a highly regarded judge in his native Saxony.

But he was more than a judge—Kreyssig was a leader in the Confessing Church, which resisted the Reich’s efforts to “Nazify” protestant churches. To be a Confessing Churchman, never mind a leader, was to live with a bull’s-eye painted on your back.

As more and more death certificates for mentally ill people crossed his desk, Kreyssig realized that something terrible was happening.

He wrote the Reich Minister of Justice protesting not only the Action T4 program but also the treatment of prisoners in concentration camps. He then charged a doctor with murder in connection with the deaths of his patients.

When he was called into the Minister’s office, where he was told that Hitler himself had authorized the program. To which Kreyssig replied: “The Führer’s word does not create a right.”

The courage to say that to a government official in Nazi Germany was extraordinary. Kreyssig was forced to retire. Although the Gestapo tried to get him sent to a concentration camp, fears over drawing attention to the T4 program probably saved Kreyssig’s life.

He spent the rest of the war at home tending to his farm and, oh yes, hiding Jews on his property.

The only judge to stand up to the Nazis outlived the “1000-year Reich” by forty-one years. Twenty years after his death, Germany held a memorial honoring his bravery and compassion.

In a culture where “go along to get along” was literally a survival strategy, Kreyssig refused to be silent. When the majority of German Potestants adapted the faith to the demands of the Reich, he refused to go along and made it clear that there was a higher law.

Thankfully, defending the sanctity of life nowadays doesn’t require anything like Kreyssig’s courage. But it does require courage. And it requires, as well, as an understanding of Whose Word does create a right.

28 January 2011

"I was told to abort my baby, but she’s ‘the best thing that ever happened’"

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, January 27, 2011 (Lifesitenews.com) - Single mom Paris Tassin appeared on the American Idol audition in Louisiana last Thursday night where she gave a tearful testimony about her decision to bring an unplanned, high risk pregnancy to term.

Tassin was eighteen years old when she found out she was pregnant. An ultrasound revealed that the baby had hydrocephalus, a condition characterized by fluid build-up inside the skull.

“[The doctors] told me that I shouldn’t have her, and it wasn’t going to be good if I did,” Tassin said in her audition tape. She refused an abortion, however, and says that her daughter Keira is now a very healthy four-year-old. The only medical complication that resulted from Keira’s condition is hearing loss, for which she needs to wear hearing aids.

“She’s the best thing that ever happened to me in my life,” said Tassin, “I’m singing for her.”

Tassin impressed judges with an emotional rendition of Carrie Underwood’s “Temporary Home,” a song that talks about the challenges of single motherhood. She was selected to move on to the next level of the competition, which will take place in Hollywood.

Tassin’s audition is not the first time that a pro-life story was featured on American Idol. Last year, Maddy Curtis, daughter of award winning pro-life blogger Tripp Curtis, told the audience in her opening segment about her eleven siblings, including one biological and three adopted brothers with down syndrome.

2007 winner Jordin Sparks also gained attention for her pro-chastity beliefs when she spoke out in defense of pre-marital abstinence at the MTV music video awards in 2008.

What The Heck Happened to the Anti-War Movement?

Source

-By Warner Todd Huston

Remember those hoary days of raucous protest when anti-war protesters sent thousands of people into the streets sometimes with only a days notice? Now consider this: have you seen any of these giant protests since 2008 presidential election?

Yeah, no one else has, either. Do you wonder why that is? Well, it’s because the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans. It was never about war at all. At this point this is an indisputable fact.

These days the anti-war movement cannot put more than a few dozen people in the street for its cause — which itself is little else but a proxy issue for the implementation of a worldwide socialist state.

Obviously it was never about “war.” It was just about Bush. After all, from the perspective of the issues and claims made against the Bush war policies by the anti-war left, Obama is not doing a whole lot differently in his foreign policy than did Bush.

The left wanted us to shut down Gitmo. Not only are we still there but Obama signed an Executive Order to close Gitmo then just simply ignored his own one-year deadline to do so. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We are still in Iraq despite Obama’s promises to be completely out six months after he became president. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

We’ve actually increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

Obama has even wildly increased the number of predator drone attacks in a wide “death from the skies” policy. Yet, the anti-war left says nothing.

The so-called anti-war movement is filled with partisan hypocrites. There is no other conclusion that can be reached on the subject.

Lastly, where is the focus on the anti-war left that the Old Media constantly indulged during Bush’s years in office? The media was so exercised about the anti-war left that it was even claimed that the anti-war movement was the “third world power” it was so powerful. This was obvious, wild-eyed hyperbole, we know now and knew then. But the fact is that the media was desperate to help get rid of Bush and the Republicans and the so-called power of the anti-war left was merely a vehicle to do so. Now that Bush is gone and quite despite the fact that none of the issues, policies, or facts on the ground have changed in any of the wars we are involved in the media is completely quiet about the anti-war movement.

Simple hypocrisy. That is all it is.

Reason TV has a great video: What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?


Poll: More Americans Now Consider Themselves Republicans

Source

Hope and Change…

Rasmussen finds that more Americans now consider themselves to be members of the party of Lincoln and Reagan than of FDR and Obama. The poll finds that 37 percent of Americans now call themselves Republicans, compared with 34 percent who call themselves Democrats. Rasmussen adds, “Keep in mind that figures reported…are for all adults, not likely voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.”

Two Januaries ago, in 2009, the same poll showed that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a tally of 41 to 33 percent. That’s a swing of 11 percentage points in party allegiance, away from Democrats (who have lost 7 points) and toward Republicans (who have gained 4 points), since President Obama took office.

Rest here>>>

The man who risked everything to oppose the culture of death

Source

German judge Lothar Kreyssig, who risked everything to oppose the Nazi T4 euthanasia program.

January 24, 2011 (Breakpoint.org) - You have probably never heard of Lothar Kreyssig—I hadn’t until recently. Yet, after hearing his story, I realized Kreyssig was a hero for our times: a man whom, at almost unbelievable risk, stood up for the sanctity of human life.

In October, 1939, the Third Reich created what came to be known as the “Action T4” program. In furtherance of what the Nazis called “racial hygiene,” Reich bureaucrats, working with doctors, were authorized to identify and kill those deemed to be “unworthy of life,” that is, institutionalized patients with “severe disabilities.”

Of course, expressions like “unworthy” and even “severe” are subjective. In reality, they were a license for mass murder. Hitler called for at least 70,000 people to be killed under this program, so doctors and officials set about meeting the Fuhrer’s quotas.

Fearing domestic and international reaction, the Nazis tried to hide what was going on: they lied to patients’ families and, fore-shadowing Auschwitz, they disguised the gas chambers as showers.

When I think of what happened to those people, especially the children—some like my autistic grandson, Max—it breaks my heart—horrifies me.

The Nazis also took pains to provide a patina of legality to the murders: Hitler personally ordered German judges not to prosecute doctors for killing their patients. And that’s where Kreyssig comes in: He was a highly regarded judge in his native Saxony.

But he was more than a judge—Kreyssig was a leader in the Confessing Church, which resisted the Reich’s efforts to “Nazify” protestant churches. To be a Confessing Churchman, never mind a leader, was to live with a bull’s-eye painted on your back.

As more and more death certificates for mentally ill people crossed his desk, Kreyssig realized that something terrible was happening.

He wrote the Reich Minister of Justice protesting not only the Action T4 program but also the treatment of prisoners in concentration camps. He then charged a doctor with murder in connection with the deaths of his patients.

When he was called into the Minister’s office, where he was told that Hitler himself had authorized the program. To which Kreyssig replied: “The Führer’s word does not create a right.”

The courage to say that to a government official in Nazi Germany was extraordinary. Kreyssig was forced to retire. Although the Gestapo tried to get him sent to a concentration camp, fears over drawing attention to the T4 program probably saved Kreyssig’s life.

He spent the rest of the war at home tending to his farm and, oh yes, hiding Jews on his property.

The only judge to stand up to the Nazis outlived the “1000-year Reich” by forty-one years. Twenty years after his death, Germany held a memorial honoring his bravery and compassion.

In a culture where “go along to get along” was literally a survival strategy, Kreyssig refused to be silent. When the majority of German Potestants adapted the faith to the demands of the Reich, he refused to go along and made it clear that there was a higher law.

Thankfully, defending the sanctity of life nowadays doesn’t require anything like Kreyssig’s courage. But it does require courage. And it requires, as well, as an understanding of Whose Word does create a right.

27 January 2011

Testemony of Dr. Abraham Capadose

Dr. Abraham Capadose, born at Amsterdam, 1795, of a Portuguese family, died there December 16th, 1874. Here is his autobiography, which he sent to his friend, Ridley Herschell, in London:

"I will no longer delay, dear friends, to comply with your request that I would communicate in writing the mode in which it pleased God to bring me to the knowledge of Himself, and to lead me out of darkness into His marvelous light.

"Being deeply sensible that it was not of myself I sought after God, but that my compassionate Lord came to seek me when I was lost, it would be false modesty if I were now to withhold an account which, when verbally communicated, interested and edified many dear friends, who therein traced the great love of the Saviour towards a poor sinner like me, and thus were led to ascribe all the glory to Him whose name is blessed for evermore. May this glory be the only object I shall keep in view in this account! Such is the sincere desire of my heart; and I ask of God to guide my pen in truth and sincerity; that I may be kept from all self-seeking, into which the necessity of speaking of myself might betray me.

"Although I was by birth a Portuguese Israelite, I was by no means zealous for the religion of my fathers. My education was rather moral than religious; and though taught to hate vice, and to love what the world calls virtue, I owe it entirely to the grace of God that at an after period I was preserved from open impiety.

"At an early age I was captivated by science and literature. I was fond of balls, plays, and every worldly amusement; but study afforded me still greater satisfaction. I became acquainted with the works of Voltaire and Rousseau at an early period of my life; but their false principles, and still more, the frightful consequences of their system, as exhibited before my eyes in the history of the French revolution, preserved me, by the divine mercy, from their hurtful influence. My parents having destined me for the medical profession, I considered it my duty to acquire the knowledge requisite for this calling; but I felt more inclination for the study of the theoretical sciences, and for philosophic research.

"My friends were nearly all young men who made an outward profession of Christianity; but the Lord had given me one friend among my near relatives. As we were both Israelites, and had been intimate from childhood, our views on all subjects were very similar. (Dr. Capadose here proceeds to state their intercourse with Bilderdyk, which is the same as the account given by Da Costa). The religious element, if I may call it so, had not as yet entered into my soul. In my early childhood, it is true, I had often felt an undefined need of prayer; and when about nine years' old, had asked my parents to give me a book of prayers, either in the French or Dutch language, that I might understand them better. I strongly urged my younger brothers and sisters to the same practice; and this was the more remarkable as I had very seldom seen any one engaged in prayer in my father's house. From that time, amid all the changes of my outward life, I never omitted the performance of this duty; and until my conversion to Christianity, it constituted all my religious worship. The prayer I used ended with these remarkable word: 'I wait for Thy salvation, O Lord!' I have preserved the book containing it, and never look upon it without adoring the goodness of that 'God of my salvation,' who has condescended to bestow upon me, at a matured age, the blessing that the child of nine years' old, hardly knowing what he asked, failed not to solicit from Him every night before he lay down to rest.

"During the period in which I was engaged in my studies, I occasionally experienced very peculiar emotions. A poor woman used to sing psalms in the street on Saturday evenings, to excite the compassion of the passengers; and more than once have I left my books to listen to her, overpowered by emotions which I could neither comprehend nor describe. At the theatre also, when Joseph in Egypt was represented, my tears flowed at the sound of the morning prayer, which was imitated from the Hebrew. At the synagogue, however, which, for the sake of decorum, I still frequented, nothing had the least power to interest me. On the contrary, the unmeaning ceremonies which appealed not to the heart, the want of reverence, the bawling noise, the discordant singing, and lastly, the employment of a language of which three-fourths of the congregation did not understand a word, disgusted me so much, that I ceased to attend it regularly, having always a great aversion to hypocrisy.

"In the mean time, as if the tempter had foreseen what was afterwards to take place, he induced my friend and myself to change our mode of life. We disliked half measures, and could not endure the modern Judaism which chooses at its pleasure to dispense with the requirements of the Mosaic law; we therefore resolved to become Israelites indeed, rigidly observing all the prescriptions of the law, and thus compelling Christians to entertain a higher respect for the Jewish religion. National pride was not our ruling motive. In this spirit, and with these views, we began assiduously to read the Bible. But, oh! The shame and wretchedness of the unconverted heart! We could not get beyond Genesis. Constant ridicule and jesting, and oftentimes even blasphemy (Lord, enter not into judgment with us!) were upon our lips instead of prayer; so that I at length told my friend it was better to abandon our reading altogether than to engage in it in such a manner.

"Thus our proposed plan vanished like smoke. My term of study was nearly completed. This was in 1818. I took my degrees in medicine, left the university, and returned to my native city Amsterdam, full of bright prospects for the future. I had an uncle there, one of the first physicians in Holland, a learned man, and highly esteemed by the principal families. Having no children, he took me into his house and adopted me as his son and successor. I was thus introduced at once to an extensive circle of acquaintance; kind and respectable, it is true, but with whom Christianity was a mere outward profession accompanied by an entirely worldly life. None of these ever spoke to me on the subject of Christianity. I have even heard some of my young friends make a boast of their infidelity, and speak without reverence of the Lord Jesus Christ. I once expressed my astonishment at this, and said, that though I did not believe in Jesus, I thought that those who worshipped Him, and did not consider Him to be God, were mere idolaters. A young physician who was of the party, who was afterwards savingly converted to God, told me some years later, how much ashamed he felt at the time, when receiving such a reproof from an Israelite.

"In the midst of constant occupation, in the diligent pursuit of scientific knowledge, I yet felt an aching void within. I had been subject from childhood to an oppression of the chest, which made me pass many sleepless nights; and in these hours of wakefulness I often thought, 'Why am I upon the earth? Why was I created a man? Should I not be a thousand times happier if I were one of the lower animals? I should not then endure what I now suffer in my body and in my soul.' Often did I cry out, 'O that this day were my last!' Yet I was not disquieted on account of my sins, else I should have shuddered at the thought of death; I was under the burden and curse of sin, without knowing it, or seeking for the remedy.

"One day I went to pay a visit to my friend who had been lately married. He had just received a letter from the celebrated professor already mentioned. 'Would you like me to read it to you,' said he, 'together with some beautiful verse he has addressed to me?' I gladly assented to the proposal. The verse, in which he described, with power and feeling, the glorious hopes of Israel, concluded with the words, 'Friend, be a Christian, and I die content.' At these words, which he pronounced in an undertone, my indignation was aroused; my friend, it appeared to me, was less shocked than he ought to have been. 'Take care,' said I, 'there is a plan laid to seduce us.' I left him immediately.

"This occupied my thoughts all the rest of the day. I could not imagine how a man of such profound learning could believe the Christian religion. From that day, however, both my friend and myself began attentively to examine the Word of God; and when we walked together we conversed on those passages that had struck us most. Having begun with the Gospel of Matthew, it was striking to me to perceive, that so far from seeking to subvert the authority of the Old Testament, he made it the bases whereon to build the Gospel of Christ.

"My friend and I spent several months in this way, becoming daily more interested in our researches. At length, with thoughts and feelings very different from those which formerly possessed us, we again determined to read the Scriptures together. For this purpose we retires to a room in my father's house; and I can never think about emotion on these hallowed hours which we spent together, as in the presence of the God of our fathers. Our interest increased as we proceeded. My mind, wearied with vain speculations, now saw a new and boundless field open before it, towards which it was irresistibly attracted; and thus before I had ever heard of the elective love of God, I had experienced the power by which He draws to Christ those souls whom He designs to bless. This study of the word of God became at length the most urgent desire of my soul. Merely to know the truth did not satisfy me: I felt that I must really possess it, and live on its substance. I understood not then the work that was going on within me; but I occasionally experienced moments of delight arising from the conviction that divine assistance and protection accompanied the course I was pursuing.

"One night, when reading the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, I was so much struck with its resemblance to the account of the sufferings of Christ which I had read in the Gospels, that I was almost convinced I had got another Bible instead of my own; being scarcely able to believe that this chapter, which may be truly entitled an abstract of the Gospel, was really in the Old Testament. 'How,' thought I, 'can any Jew, after reading this chapter, doubt that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah!' Whence could this strong conviction arise? I had often read this chapter before; but now I read it with the light of the Spirit of God. From this moment I recognized Christ as the promised Messiah, and this gave an entirely new character to our meditations on the Word of God. It was the dawn of a glorious day to our souls, the light of which increased more and more, enlightening our minds, warming our hearts, and even then bestowing upon us unspeakable consolation. Many of the enigmas of life, which had hitherto puzzled and distressed me, were now explained; everything seemed to revive around me, and the object and interest of my life were entirely changed. Happy days, this gladdened by a sense of the Master's presence! Never can I forget them!

"I believe it was by divine direction that my friend and I did not disclose to any one what was passing in our minds; and that we confined ourselves to the study of God's Word, laying aside all other books except Heydeck's 'Defence of the Christian Faith.' This learned man had been a Rabbi in Germany, and having embraced the Romish religion, was made Professor of Oriental languages at Madrid. This book, written with great talent, and much knowledge of Scripture, is a defence of Christianity against Rationalism. Its perusal was useful to us in two ways; we found that the powerful logic with which he combated the reasonings of Voltaire and Rousseau, entirely deserted him when he attempted to defend Popery against the doctrines of the Reformation.

"Whenever I had any leisure in the morning, I used to shut myself up to read the Word of God, as I dared not peruse it in my uncle's presence. One day I had been particularly considering the following passage in Isa. Vii. 14, 'Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.' On going down stairs I found a Jewish physician, a friend of my uncle's, waiting for him in the ante-room. He was turning over the leaves of a new edition of the Bible. 'There,' said he, 'is a fatal passage we cannot easily wrest from the Christians.' It was the very passage I had been meditating upon. My soul was deeply moved, and I again perceived the guiding hand of my God. 'Why, then,' I replied, ' should we not confess the truth?' My uncle now entered, and enquired what subject we were discussing. The physician informed him; and knowing my uncle to be deeply versed in the rabbinical writings, asked him what the Rabbis say on the passage. 'Alas!' said my uncle, 'only a mass of nonsense.' With a beating heart I listened to this admission; and inwardly thanked God for having permitted me to hear these words from the lips of one whose rabbinical learning made him to be considered as an authority by the Jews.

"All these various circumstances convinced me more and more that truth is to be found in Christianity alone. I could not now be satisfied with mere knowledge, I longed for love. Then it was that the sun of righteousness shed abroad in our hearts, not only the light that illuminates, but the quickening warmth that enables the soul to live the life of God. I saw that love had led the Saviour to seek me. I perceived also my own sinful and miserable condition; but this feeling seemed absorbed in a sense of the divine love. In Christ I found my life, the centre of all my thoughts and affections, the sole object that could fill the void in my heart, the key of all mysteries, the principal of all true philosophy, yea the truth itself.

"I daily felt more and more the necessity of openly avowing my sentiments. I can record, to the glory of God, that the certainty of losing a considerable property, if I declared myself a Christian (which the event has confirmed), never for a moment entered into the scruples which made me hesitate. I dreaded the effect of the disclosures on the kind relative who had treated me as his son; on whose choleric temperament it might produce an impression that, at this advanced age, might be fatal. Doubtless, had my faith been stronger, I should have broken through every obstacle; but I could only suffer in silence, at the same time earnestly praying to God to come to my aid, and open a way before me.

"And the God of mercy attended to the voice of my supplication. It was my uncle's custom to read the newspaper aloud after dinner. One day when I was sitting opposite to him in a state of great rejection, he read out the following news from Hamburg: 'We have just witnessed a very interesting event. A Rabbi, after having announced to his co-religionists in the synagogue, that an attentive examination of the prophecies had convinced him that Messiah has already come, and having made a confession of the Christian faith, was baptized a few days since in this city, and received as a minister of the gospel.' On reading this, my uncle said the following words, which the position I was then in rendered so remarkable: 'If this man has acted from self-interest, he is worthy of contempt: but if from conviction, he ought to be respected.' Oh, Christians! You who can sympathize with the feelings of those like-minded with you, need I describe to you what passed in my mind at this solemn moment? In a transport of joy I fell on the neck of the venerable old man, saying, 'Yes, uncle, and it is God who makes you feel thus; know that he whom you love with the tenderness of a father, is in the same case with this Rabbi!' I pronounced these words in such violent agitation, and in a tone so unusual, that my poor uncle thought I was out of my senses. He left the room for a few minutes, as if to allow me to recover myself; and at his return began to speak on a different subject.

"I could see that although my uncle was annoyed at what had passed, he did not attach to my words the importance they deserved. I therefore resolved, after having strengthened myself in God, to make the same declaration to him the following day. He could no longer shut his eyes to what had taken place; and a heart-rending scene followed. He beat his breast, lamented that ever he was born, and exclaimed, in the bitterness of his soul, that I was about to bring his grey hairs with sorrow to the grave. His reproaches went to my heart; but the Lord strengthened and comforted me, and enable me to shew the dear old man such marks of tenderness as at length somewhat soothed him.

"When the change became known to my family, they first used gentle means with me, in the hope that these new notions might pass away; but finding I grew bold, and ventured to preach the gospel to them, the resorted to harsh treatment. It was a season of deep trial to my soul. This state of things increased the ardent desire I felt publicly to confess Christ. My family wished me to go into Germany, or some other country, for this purpose; but to this I objected, lest it should appear as if I were ashamed of the step I was about to take. My friend and I at length decided on Leyden as the place where we should receive the rite of baptism. The 20th of October, 1822, was the day so ardently desired, on which we were admitted members of the Church of Christ. Kneeling in the presence of the congregation, before the God of our fathers, who is the true God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - we had the unspeakable joy, unworthy sinners as we were, to confess before the Christian Church, the blessed name of that great God and Saviour who had come to seek and save us when we were lost. Glory be to God."

Among Capadose's writings, the most noteworthy are: (1) "Aan mijne geloofsgenooten in de Ned. Heb. Gem," The Hague, 1843. (2) "Overdenkingen over Israel's Roeping en Toekomst," Amsterdam, 1843. (3) "Rome en Jerusalem," Utrecht, 1851.

Daily Kos: End of Olbermann Show Is End of Democracy, Free Speech Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/23/daily-kos-end-olberma

The far-left bloggers at Daily Kos were distraught at the abrupt departure of Keith Olbermann. Dagnome quickly dragged in the Citizens United case from the Supreme Court to indicate that corporate power had once again crushed freedom of speech:

...[M]y guess is that this development is one of...MANY that will now take place since the merger of NBC and Comcast has bee[n] all but approved.

Forgive my editorializing, but in its own way, this follows on the heels [of] Citizens UNited as one of the worst developments of the last 12 months - NOW we have a truly conservative corporation controlling muzzling the voices on what used to be free speech in the USA...

Badabing sees war, and wants to "go to the mattresses" to preserve democracy:

I'm sick to death over this, and it is yet another piece of the puzzle of the Shock Doctrine in full view of our eyes. It is disgusting, and we must have a complete plan of action to raise our voices, and I don't just mean, complaining or canceling Comcast.

I'm talking real action here. I welcome your ideas. What can we do as a community to stop this vicious and final take over of what little is left for the progressive open free market for real news on our airwaves?

Time to go to the f---ing 'mattresses,' for Keith, because next with this new Comcast/NBC merger, Rachel Maddow will be next, and so will Ed Schulz and Darrell Ratigan. [sic]

DARRELL Ratigan? Do these Kosmonauts even watch these shows? That would be Dylan Ratigan. Then came this:

So let's make a real action plan here people. Let's stop this cold in its tracks and make certain, the Oligarchy, Plutocrats, Corporate takeover of our final notion of what is left of free speech and progressive ideals will not be taken laying down like helpless citizens.

Regardless of when this merger happened (today or whenever) we have watched systematically as the Fairness Doctrine has been destroyed, and will keep being destroyed, and this is absolutely no different in my book, that how the Right Wing Supreme Court, took away President Al Gore's election (unconstitutionally) to hand it over to George Bush, or how the Citizen's United decision, (making Corporations people who can now, secretly steal elections). This is all one in the same.

Ipsos claimed he was hearing that Olbermann would rejoin his old ESPN co-anchor Dan Patrick and do sports again: "It will happen (so I'm told) on the channel now known as Versus. It's a sports channel owned by Comcast, and the story I'm hearing is that it will be rebranded as NBC Sportschannel once the takeover is complete, with Keith as its star personality." Then this amazing analysis, that Keith never meant to be over the top:

I don't think Keith ever intended to become what he became. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly (or, for that matter, Cenk Uygur or Ed Schultz) seem to understand very clearly that they're paid to deliver the loudest opinions possible at all times, and damn the consequences.

We Keith watchers know that he spends a lot of time thinking about the consequences. Look at the way "Worst Persons" has come and gone and come again and gone again, and that's tame as can be compared with the rancor that takes place on Fox.

Sara R has the most desperate way of coping, imagining that Olbermann could replace Joe Lieberman in the Senate:

When one door closes, another opens. The thought that came to my mind was, this man is being freed up for something else. And then I thought, Joe Lieberman's seat is going to open up...

Keith Olbermann has:

* A first class intellect * Killer debating skills * Experience before cameras and microphones

...but most of all...

* A deep, heartfelt concern for the wellbeing of the American people.

It's a thought -- m]aybe Sen. Franken and Mr. Olbermann should have coffee and talk about the experience of running for the Senate and what it is like to serve there.

A girl can dream, can't she? I could not envision a finer public servant than a Senator Olbermann.

[HT: Lancelot Links]

Post-abortive mothers share stories of grief, redemption on Supreme Court steps

Jacquie Stalnaker of Birmingham, Alabama delivers her testimony on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
Kathleen Gilbert/LSN

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 25, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a bittersweet ending to a joyful March for Life this year, dozens of post-abortive mothers took to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Monday afternoon to tell their stories of fear, anguish, and redemption, giving a rare glimpse into the terrible human cost of Roe v. Wade.

Of the 45 who spoke, 40 were newcomers, according to Georgette Forney of Silent No More Awareness, including a group of twelve that had traveled from Arizona to brave the blustery January weather. Over 100 post-abortion sufferers walked together in the March for Life.

(To find out more about Silent No More Awareness, click here)

Some described in detail the “horrendous” pain of the abortion procedure itself, which was to leave many with health problems and permanent loss of fertility. But even worse was the emotional devastation that followed: feelings of desolation, loneliness, and despair overwhelmed some mothers only moments after losing their child to abortion.

“All that remained was the guilt and shame, shreds of the person I had been before the abortions. Abortion is not a choice. For me it was a prison,” said one mother.

Mary Jane D’Andries of Pittsburgh recalled how she felt “so alone” the morning after her abortion forty years ago. “As far as I was concerned, the relationship with the father was over the moment he wanted me to have an abortion,” she said. “The loneliness was not due to his absence, it was due to my child’s absence.”

Many women said they suffered for years - 20, 25, 30, or more - with a painful burden of guilt, buried deep inside them. They described the years of drug addiction, dysfunctional relationships, sexual promiscuity, and depression that resulted. Several said that the rejection of their baby also led to the ruin of other relationships - with lovers, parents, and living children.

“I remember when I went to go get in the car [after the abortion], my one-year-old son reached out for me to pick him up, and I couldn’t,” recalled Cynthia Carney of Tulsa, barely able to speak through her tears. “My relationship changed with him that day. It’s never been the same.”

No Hope, No Choice

Many stories revealed the desperation women experience when they realize that no one will support them during their pregnancy - a desperation that has been compared to that of a suicide-minded individual when all hope seems lost.

Michelle Geraci
Kathleen Gilbert/LSN

Michelle Geraci described how workers at Planned Parenthood, which a friend had recommended as a place to get help, turned their backs against her hopes to keep the baby.

“Every time I called I hoped to get someone who could tell me somewhere to call to help me keep my baby. They would just tell me I was on my own,” said Geraci.

After arriving for an abortion, she accidentally caught a glimpse of her baby on the sonogram. “Something went through me like a wave,” she said. “I asked the doctor what that was, and she said it was nothing. She saw my face, and quickly moved between me and the screen. Then she stopped and said that I didn’t have to do this.

“I desperately told my situation and that I didn’t want to, but I didn’t know what else to do. I said I felt like I was on a roller coaster and I wanted off,” Geraci recalled. “She looked at me, shrugged her shoulders and said, ‘fine.’ Next thing I knew, a mask was over my face, and I was thinking I was trying to say that getting off the roller coaster didn’t mean I wanted an abortion.

“Next thing I knew, I was waking up in a room full of girls crying. The girl next to me tearfully reached out to hold my hand. I was crying too.

“I took her hand, but I hated her, and I hated myself.”

After becoming pregnant following a rape, Pam Messina of Charlottesville, Va., said that the decision whether or not to abort “tormented” her. “I cried for days and was told I had to hurry up and make a decision,” she recalled. The day after aborting her child, Messina said her mother attempted to comfort her by saying that “she would have aborted me if it had been available to her.”

“She thought this would make me feel better about my decision; however, it made me feel much worse - because if I had been given a choice, I would have chosen to be born,” said Messina. “But my baby was not given a chance or a voice to speak to this request.”

For some, the “freedom of choice” provided by legal abortion was not freedom at all, but instead was used as a weapon against them.

When Jacquie Stalnaker of Birmingham, Ala. told her boyfriend about her pregnancy, she said, “To my astonishment he said it had to be aborted. He told me it was my life or the child’s life, but one of us was going to go.”

“We drove to the abortion clinic with the gun underneath the front seat of the car, so I knew he truly meant his statement.”

“As the procedure was being performed, there was no anesthesia, there was no numbness, there was no pain medicine,” said Stalnaker, an attractive and youthful-looking blonde, now 45. “I can tell you exactly the very second how it felt for that child to be disposed out of my body. They put her in a jar, they set her on the shelf, and sent me on my way.”

Stalnaker said that her boyfriend had driven away - she never saw him again - and as she walked across the parking lot she collapsed and nearly hemorrhaged to death. Since then, she said she has survived cancer three times, had a 25-pound tumor removed from her uterus, and has been unable to bear any more children - all effects, according to doctors, of the abortion.

The Face of Healing

Despite the darkness of their stories, all the women attested to a burgeoning of hope when they began journeying to wholeness again, through healing tears of true grief over their baby’s loss and gratitude for the forgiveness of God.

Although her life spiraled downward after her abortion, one mother said she was not consciously aware of her grief for years. But after opening her heart to his loss, she said she saw her son in heaven in a vision.

“When I saw him, I knew who he was immediately,” she said. “I saw his whole personality, his potential, his impact on others in his life, and I saw that I was responsible for taking that away.”

A remarkable trait the post-abortive women held in common was their affectionate attachment and even relationship to the little one that had been put to death - something many called the only path to healing.

A woman who introduced herself as “Chris” said that she heard “the little life within me crying out to live” in the last hours before the procedure: “Christopher’s cries for life would remain in my memory from that day on.” Years later, she said, she “began to reconcile with Christopher and to heal” at a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat.

One woman even described a mystical experience after begging God for a chance to speak to her unborn child 23 years after the abortion, praying: “Miriam, please forgive me for what I did to you.”

“And she said back to me, oh Mommy, I’m so sorry for the 23 years of suffering that you have endured,” she said. “I don’t hear voices, but that morning, I heard Miriam, and she sounded like she was 23 years old. In fact, she sounded like one of my nieces. Miriam’s response to me told me that she loved me.”

A face and a name for their baby: this was the key to bringing back the women’s exiled motherhood, and the key, they said, to exposing the lies perpetuated by legalized abortion.

“I saw the truth I’d been denying: she was not a blob of tissue or a mistake,” said one mother. “She was my little Cecy, and because she was inconvenient, I allowed her to be killed. If abortion had not been legal, I would have made room for her in my life.”


(To find out more about Silent No More Awareness, click here)

26 January 2011

Liberal Media Tries to Pin Jared Loughner to Conservatives

Suppose I want to say "Jared Loughner was inspired by a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh, episodes of Sarah Palin's Alaska, and Tea Party rallies."

What is the defect in that? Well, if you're a leftist, it's perfect in every single way: It connects a shooting to your political enemies and gives you an advantage you can't get via your policies. But the one problem with it -- which isn't a problem so much as an obstacle -- is that it's simply not true.

But it's so wonderful! It should be true; the fact that is not is more of a defect of reality than a defect of this wonderful sentence you've written in your head. Your ideology is perfect in its precision; it's reality that's messy, disordered, and off-message.

So there's this sentence. Gorgeous, really. It deserves to be written. It deserves to be carved in ten foot tall white marble megaliths.

But you can't write it. Because of that one little problem obstacle. If you write it, you will immediately have it fact-checked, and facts being stupid things, you will be forced to state it is not, in fact, true.

This is a symptom of what I mentioned yesterday, the lack of any "Phase 2" (in South Park Gnome terminology) to connect Phase 1, steal underpants/complain about rhetoric of violence from the right, with Phase 3, Profit!!! Two out of three ain't bad, liberals figure, and so what if there is nothing to connect 1 to 3? We'll just talk up 1 and 3 until we're blue in the face and assume 2.

See, assumptions and implications can't be fact-checked. You didn't actually say them, so no one can claim you said something untrue. You didn't say it; you just implied the living fuck out of it. But there's no such thing as an implication-check, now is there?

Watch Newsweek do this. Look at the headline, then look at the picture.

The Missed Warning Signs

A 2009 study warned that the rise of right-wing extremism could spur violent attacks. But the report was attacked by Republicans, including now-Speaker John Boehner.

Now-- having headlined the story about "right wing extremism" and shown a picture of Jared Lee Loughner to illustrate it, you'd think they'd go on to explain how it is Jared Lee Loughner is connected to the right, or even read a single right-leaning website at all. You'd be wrong.

Because they have no evidence of that, and if they claimed they did, they'd be fact-checked. So they don't say it. They just imply it so strongly it's as if they said it -- but better, because they didn't say it, so there's no fact-check, and no need for retraction or correction!

This is what American liberal journalism is reduced to -- lying by implication.

Here's as close as Newsweek's editors will permit this author to imply a connection:

In the wake of last weekend’s attempted assassination of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, which left six dead and 14 wounded, the report’s warning of a lone wolf attack from someone with extremist tendencies seems prescient.

Note the headline spoke of "right wing" violence, but here, in connecting Loughner to the report, they will only say "someone with extremist tendencies." Which, by the way, is a lie, because we usually do not discuss psychopaths as "extremists," which implies a political orthodoxy.

Which Loughner didn't have -- though, to the extent he did, it was more left than right.

But they resort to that because they need to connect this up with "right wing extremists," but can't say "right wing." That is not proven. Not only is that not proven, there is no evidence at all to suggest it and a fair amount to suggest against it! So instead, they say one thing in the headline -- so you know what they mean -- and put the image of Loughner right below it, without writing a single sentence that actually links the two.

When they have the chance to write such a sentence -- they don't. Because they know it's untrue, they know it will be fact-checked. So they just continue implying it, this time by shifting the terms of discussion from the headline's "right wing extremism" to a general description of a maniac, "person with extremist tendencies."

And, at the end, their method of implying a connection is to report... that no one has found a connection. Yet, would be the operative but unstated word here.

While discussion has swirled around possible ties between accused gunman Jared Loughner and right-wing extremists, DHS on Monday said department officials “have not established any such possible link.” Levin doesn’t believe extremism was the sole driving factor. “This guy is a mentally deranged person first,” he said, and noted that the mentally ill often latch on to conspiracy theories to layer over their already “obsessive and aggressive template.”

Note how deftly the lie was there -- they admit that there is no connection to the political extremism they're talking about here, none at all, but then follow thyat up Levin doesn't believe extremism was the sole driving factor, implying that it was a factor, just not the "sole driving" one. There may be other factors; but this one, extremism, was most important.

That sentence following the last one which stated there had been NO ESTABLISHED CONNECTION to politcal extremism of any kind, left right or center.

In just ten short words, without an actual positive sentence affirming that Loughner was driven by political extremism of a recognizable sort (such as the type outlined in this Homeland Security report), the article states that he was in fact driven by just that political extremism -- by implication, of course.

Again, they can't say, so they imply it. They cannot say "Loughner was driven by political extremism of the right" -- not true -- so they say no link has been made as of yet, but political extremism was not the sole driving factor behind the crime. There may have been other factors, other than the political extremism that was the main factor.

A factor so main that Newsweek cannot cite a single person declaring that affirmatively in a positive sentence.

The rest of the article is about that Homeland Security article saying veterans will come home and murder people and how smart a report it was. There is no connection to Loughner within the article other than what I have sketched for you.

The article ends on this lie:

Aaron Mehta is a reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative reporting organization in Washington D.C.

See, that's a lie, because "nonpartisan" is a legal category meaning simply "not formally, legally associated with either party. But the media uses this to hide the ideological affiliation of leftist organizations -- yes, the organization is technically "nonpartisan" on its paperwork it files with DC. But that is not an accurate description -- a more accurate one would be "extremely leftist organization which almost exclusively champions liberal and leftist causes and the Democratic Party."

Another way to describe it is a corporate shell of George Soros' greater Marxism, Inc., via his Open Society Initiative. (page 19)

But you choose -- those interesting, informative descriptions, or Newsweek's choice of the meaningless legalism "nonpartisan."

Note to the media: If a lie is so obvious and disprovable that you are forbidden to state it directly, isn't that a sign you shouldn't imply the fuck out of it?

Isn't that both dishonest and cowardly? You won't even write the words. You know they're not true. If you know they're not true -- why are you writing them via implication?


Another Way to Put It... JackStraw notices them doing this on Hardball; I've been noticing it too. This is the new normal of "journalism." Which JackStraw describes as:

This is the new technique. Don't explicitly connect the dots, just put the dots an inch apart and let the viewer connect them.

I want to point this out, and I think it's important: They're doing this partly because they're political hacks and partly because they're pandering to their leftist partisan audience, which wants to see assertions like this -- true or not! - -and will punish them by tuning out if they're not fed a steady diet of political pornography.

Newsweek's and Matthew's viewers don't show up for the truth or facts; they show up for leftist talking points. Now, both of these having pretenses of journalistic enterprises, they cannot simply lie directly. So they don't. They just, as JackStraw says, put two dots thisclose to each other and let their hyperpartisan audiences fill them in.

And, if the public begins to subconsciously associate the two together through the cute use of Loughner's picture under headlines about "right-wing extremism," so much the better.

Let me again point out that the media is very, very concerned if the "right wing" has "misinformation" about ObamaCare -- like the "misinformation" it will increase spending -- and works overtime to correct these misunderstandings by stupid conservatives.

And boy do they. And then they make fun of us for being so stupid as to think a trillion dollars in new government spending will actually increase government spending.

But notice what happens when the left if possessed of a belief that isn't true. Do they look right into the camera and say, "Look, I know what you're thinking, but the evidence does not support that?"

No. They pander to it. Without saying it's true they imply it's true; they assume it's true; they devote articles and "news segments" to suggesting it's true.

Can't say it's true, because it's not; but the leftist audience believes it's true, and whatever you do, you must not contradict them. You must reinforce their beliefs, even if you know they're factually simply wrong.

By the leftists, of the leftists, for the leftists.

Oh: A commenter points out the Center for Public Integrity is also funded by terrorist bomb-maker and Obama political patron Bill Ayers' Annenberg Foundation (a foundation he gave Obama a nice plush job at).

Another Good Article: Someone (I forget who) noted that a blog called "Chequerboard" had also used the South Park Gnomes analogy.

The article doesn't just talk about that -- it's a long-ish recapitulation of the left's lies with lots of good quotes beating them back.

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More