Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

29 September 2010

One-Third of Blacks Support Tea Party


They must be racists…

A new poll released by Pajamas TV claims that one-third of black voters support the tea party movement.
WND reported:

A new poll released this week soundly contradicts critics’ claims that the tea-party movement is “fringe,” “white” and “racist.”

PJTV’s Tea Party Tracking Poll has monitored nationwide sentiments toward the tea party on a weekly basis since Aug. 2. The poll’s most recent reports reveal the following results:

The number of people who identify as “members” of the tea party has more than tripled over the last month alone, up to 21 percent of likely voters;

Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said they support the tea parties based on the movement’s positions on the issues;

Among the likely voters who are black, 32 percent said they would vote for a candidate backed by the tea parties.

27 September 2010

Princess Lisa Murkowski

Obama's beliefs are at odds with most americans

via Gateway Pundit.

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, September 26, 2010, 1:41 PM

In issue after issue this past year Barack Obama’s positions were unpopular with the American people.

A great majority of Americans opposed Obamacare (61% want it repealed), a victory mosque at ground zero (68% oppose mosque), another failed stimulus (only 31% support the idea), suing Arizona over their immigration law (two-thirds oppose), increasing energy taxes (2 to 1 margin), trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York City (only 29% agree).

Add this to the list…
Obama announced that the recession was over this week. 74% of Americans disagree.
CNN reported:

Economic experts may believe the recession is over, but try telling that to the public.

Seventy-four percent of Americans believe the economy is still in a recession, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. Only 25 percent think the downturn is over.

One-third of Americans say the recession is serious, while another 29 percent characterize it as moderate.

25 September 2010

Liberal Research

Islamist: “We Will Build Our Victory Mosque – On Top Of Your Grave”

Radical American Islamist: “We Will Build Our Victory Mosque – On Top Of Your Grave”
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, September 23, 2010, 5:09 PM

Here’s a tip: If you’re going to write a threatening email about a victory mosque on top of the bones of dead Americans don’t use your hotmail account and a university computer.
Stop the 911 Mosque received this email today.

We received an email today about the Ground Zero mosque stating, “we will build our Victory Mosque … We will even build it on top of your grave!” The IP for the sender indicates they accessed their email account via a computer at the University of Washington.

Here is the email:

From: Malik Bawwab
Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Subject: Coalition to Honor Ground Zero Contact: We Own You!!!
To: Webmaster

From:
Malik Bawwab
malik_bawwab@hotmail.com

Message:
My name is Malik Bawwab and I am an Arab Muslim! And we will build our Victory Mosque wherever we want to build it! And there is nothing any of you damn infidels can do about it! We will even build it on top of your grave! You can cry all you want and complain like little babies, but WE OWN YOU!!! And all my Arab brothers and sisters spit on your grave!!!

Sent from (ip address): 128.208.125.114
(D-128-208-125-114.dhcp4.washington.edu)

Malik made a mistake by using his yahoo account and school computers.
This looks like the culprit(?)

It looks like he’s a Huskie.

Malik may be passionate about his Victory Mosque at Ground Zero…
But he’s not very smart.

Malik also raised a little hell at a speech by a pro-Israel speaker on campus.

If you find out any more on this radical punk please leave it in the comments or shoot me an email.
I’ll be updating.

UPDATE: Down with Dems added:

Well at least we can all now agree on one thing: it IS a Victory Mosque.

Well, all of us except Obama and Bloomberg.

UPDATE: Malik Bawwab may have a record.
Hat Tip Kenneth

22 September 2010

Andrew Breitbart Takes on the Hate

20 September 2010

Sarah => Mainstream. Obama => Fringe

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 20, 2010, 11:47 AM

Of course, this surprises no one except the far left cranks in the state-run media…
63% of mainstream voters say their views are more like Sarah Palin’s than Barack Obama’s.

Rasmussen reported:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 40% say their views are closer to the president’s than to those of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate.

Among the Political Class, however, 68% say their views are more like Obama’s, while 63% of Mainstream voters describe their views as more like Palin’s.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party say their views are more like Palin’s. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they think more like the president.

What do you mean?…
Not everyone wants to build a victory mosque at Ground Zero?

16 September 2010

School Trip to “Moderate” Mosque: Inside Video Captures Kids Bowing to Allah

The ACLU was busy and missed this one.

School Trip to “Moderate” Mosque: Inside Video Captures Kids Bowing to Allah

Today, Americans for Peace and Tolerance released a video showing 6th graders from Wellesley, MA as they rise from prostrating themselves alongside Muslim men in a prayer to Allah while on a public school field trip to the largest mosque in the Northeast. Teachers did not intervene. Parents have not been told.



...

The video was taken inside the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center – Boston’s controversial Saudi-funded mega-mosque – during a Wellesley Middle School social studies trip to the mosque, ostensibly taken to learn about the history of Islam first-hand. Yet the video reveals that the students are being blatantly mis-educated about Islam. A mosque spokesperson is seen teaching the children that in Mohammed’s 7th century Arabia women were allowed to vote, while in America women only gained that right a hundred years ago. This seems to be an increasingly recurring theme in American schools – the denigration of western civilization and the glorification of Islamic history and values. In fact, just recently, the American Textbook Council revealed that the New York State high school regents exam whitewashes the atrocities that occurred during the imperialistic Islamic conquest of Christian Byzantium, Persia, the African continent, and the Indian subcontinent, even as it demonizes European colonialism in South America.

The mosque spokesperson also taught the students that the only meaning of Jihad in Islam is a personal spiritual struggle, and that Jihad has historically had no relationship with holy war. As far as we know, the school has not corrected these false lessons.

For the past three years we’ve been sounding the alarm about the radical leadership and Saudi funding of the Boston mega-mosque and the organization that runs it, the Muslim American Society, which has been labeled by Federal prosecutors as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

The Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is currently serving 23 years in jail on terror charges. For years, its board of trustees included Yusuf al Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who was banned by Bill Clinton from the United States in 1999. Qaradawi now chairs the Muslim American Society’s university, which offers classes inside the mosque. Over half the mosque’s $15.5 million price tag was funded by wealthy Saudis and since it opened, several of its leaders, donors and members have been implicated in Islamic extremism.

Oussama Ziade, a big donor to the mosque, is now a fugitive in Lebanon after being indicted in 2009 for dealing in the assets of an Al Qaeda financier. Ahmad Abousamra, the son of the Boston Muslim American Society’s former vice-president Abdulbadi Abousamra, is now a fugitive in Syria, fleeing the country before being indicted in 2009 on charges of aiding Al Qaeda. One of the mosque’s imams, Abdullah Faaruuq, was captured on tape in 2010 telling followers to “pick up the gun and the sword” and to defend another local terrorist Aafia Siddiqui from the U.S. government. Siddiqui, who was one of the imam’s congregants, is an MIT graduate and Al Qaeda memberawaiting sentencing for attempting to murder FBI agents in Afghanistan while shouting “death to America.” (LINK)

The mosque leadership continues to be embraced by top Massachusetts political and religious leaders. These include Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, as well as a group of local progressive rabbis and Christian clergy, who all insist despite evidence to the contrary that the mosque is moderate and its critics are just bigots.

Indeed, this is a familiar refrain by leaders nationwide in response to the increasing public realization that Islamic leaders are not as moderate as they present themselves. Radicalism is growing and many moderate Muslims have been silenced. In various parts of the country, public schools are allowing Muslim extremists to promote Islam to our children. Something’s broken here. Our leadership is failing. It’s now up to ordinary citizens to fix it.


O'Donnell


15 September 2010

Morning Sickness

Psalm 71:6 By You I have been upheld from my birth; You are He who took me out of my mother's womb. My praise shall be continually of You."

More than 75 percent of all women in their first trimester of pregnancy suffer some form of morning sickness. More than half become physically sick. While it may not help a woman with morning sickness feel better, it might help to know that morning sickness may serve a good purpose.

A University of California biologist has concluded that morning sickness may actually be the body's way of protecting the developing child. Margie Profet spent six years studying diets, birth defects and the level of natural toxins in our food. Most food has a natural, low concentration of poisons. For example, plants make poisons to protect their leaves from marauding insects. Normally these poisons are so weak that they are completely harmless to us. However, the newly developing infant is extremely susceptible to these low levels of toxins until about the eighth week of development. Naturally occurring chemicals in our environment can cause birth defects and even death to the vulnerable infant. When the body detects a level of toxins dangerous to the developing child, it may use morning sickness to rid the body of them.

Profet mentions other studies that showed that women who get nauseous and vomit during early pregnancy have lower rates of miscarriage than women who don't get sick.

The final scientific opinion isn't in yet. However, morning sickness may indeed be God's safety valve to protect the sensitive, developing child from harm.



Prayer:
I thank You, dear Father, for the wonderful way in which You formed me in my mother's womb. I realize that as I was formed, You hand-made me no less than You originally formed the first human being, Adam. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
Notes:
"Morning sickness may protect fetus from toxins." Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 13. p. 7A.

Howard Zinn was a communist

Interesting stuff

Howard Zinn’s FBI Files: What It Reveals

The announcement [1] last week by the FBI that it was releasing the FBI files of the late radical historian, Howard Zinn, was not met with universal acclaim. In fact, many leftists were enraged. Typical was the reaction of Noam Chomsky, who was quoted [2] by writer Clark Merrefield. Zinn’s files, Chomsky said, were “mostly a mixture of things that they’ve picked up here and there which is mostly false, things they’ve gotten from informants that are mostly false. We took for granted that obviously we were being monitored by the FBI.” For Chomsky, anything coming from the FBI obviously has to, by definition, be lies.

The most recent comment from the ranks of the Left is by frequent Nation writer Chris Hedges, whose column [3] in Bob Scheer’s inappropriately named Truthdig reflects the most common take on Zinn’s work by liberal/left intellectuals. Hedges writes how he used Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States as a text for the American history class he was giving to prison inmates. “We’ve been lied to,” students would comment at the end of class. He assigned Zinn’s work because he says it opened the “eyes of young, mostly African-Americans to their own history and the structures that perpetuate misery for the poor and gluttony and privilege for the elite.” (Wonder no more about why so much of the American underclass get a bad education.)

So what is in these files? First, the FBI had evidence that Zinn was a member of the Communist Party of the United States, and lied about his membership when being interviewed by FBI agents. The first file on the subject appeared in March of 1949, when an informant noted “that he (ZINN) is a Communist Party member and attends meetings five days a week.” Zinn was then employed by the American Labor Party, which itself gives credence to the informant’s report. By that date, the ALP — created in the early forties to give NYC labor a left-wing ballot on which to vote for FDR — had been taken over lock, stock and barrel by the CP. It never would have hired non-Party members as full-time employees.

Another informant described Zinn as a “person with some authority” in the CP group to which they belonged. Zinn, he said, taught a course for his comrades on “basic Marxism.” On June 12, 1957, another informant told the Bureau that when he was transferred to the Williamsburgh branch of the Party in 1949, “HOWARD ZINN was already a member of that section.” It was his impression that “ZINN was not a new member, but had been in the CP for some time.”

Zinn, however, denied he was a Communist when questioned by the FBI in 1953. It is important to note here that unlike those who testified before Congressional investigating committees, Zinn was not under oath. The reason Zinn denied his membership was the same as that for other Communists. The Party instructed them not to, even when asked to testify before committees like HUAC. As some of the Hollywood Ten members revealed years after their own investigations, if they said they were Reds, that would only prove that the Red-baiters were right when they called them Communists! It would undermine their pose as good liberals, who were only taking pro-Soviet positions because they genuinely believed in them, not because it was the Party line.

And this is precisely the pose Zinn took to the agents who questioned him in 1953. Zinn “acknowledged that perhaps his activities in the past had opened him to charges that he was associated with the CP as a member; however,” he told the FBI, “he was not. … He stated that he was a liberal and perhaps some people would consider him to be a ‘leftist.’” He admitted that he participated in the work of groups that had been considered CP fronts — in fact, he belonged to and worked in scores of them, not just one or two; “but his participation was motivated by his belief that in this country people had the right to believe, think and act according to their own ideals.” He went on to note that if he had knowledge of anyone who sought to overthrow the U.S. government by force or violence, he would advise the Bureau. Zinn added that “he would advise the FBI if he observed persons committing acts of sabotage or espionage against the Government.” He also declared that he “would defend this country in the event of war against any enemy including the Soviet Union.”

What can one say about these statements? First, Zinn had defended his country, serving as a bombardier in the US Air Force during World War II. Indeed, it was that experience that led him to view the US as a nation that committed atrocities against the people of the world, and he obviously never lost a sense of guilt about the civilian injuries he had caused as a result of his wartime bombing raids .

Secondly, Zinn, like other leftists, protested the innocence of all those accused of espionage, like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. Since he viewed any of the people so accused as innocent victims of a witch-hunt (like Christopher Hedges today), he did not have to worry about the facts. He automatically assumed they all had been framed up. Would he have defended the US if indeed the Cold War had escalated into a real war with the USSR? Note he says “any enemy,” and in his eyes at that time, the Soviet Union was a peacemaking power and a friend of the American people, hence not an enemy. So as he obviously saw things, a result like that would never take place.

Finally, he acknowledged to the agents that he belonged to obvious front groups, and that “some of the members…with which he had been associated might be CP members,” but he was “certain that not all of the members” were. This too was obfuscation, typical of how CP members talked. The fronts to which he belonged included The American Veterans Committee, the Committee To Repeal the Mundt-Nixon Bill, and others. These groups were then entirely made up of Communists, with rare exceptions, and these members were often Communists in all regards except formal membership. No one in that period in the democratic Left and anti-Communist Left joined or worked with such Communist dominated or controlled groups. No one in the FBI was fooled.

The file stops, and resumes in the early ‘60’, when as the Bureau’s press release notes, “the Bureau took another look at Zinn on account of his criticism of the FBI’s civil rights investigations.” The FBI, in fact, had much to account for, and took a rather passive role in protection of civil rights workers. The new investigation reflects a great deal about J.Edgar Hoover’s paranoia that any actual threats to America’s security may have come from those opposing segregation.

By this time, it is clear that Howard Zinn had long departed from CP ranks. If anything, he was far to the left of the official American CP. During the war in Vietnam, they backed the moderate group known as “Negotiations Now,” which sought a negotiated settlement of the war, and had the support of people like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Irving Howe. Zinn became the architect of advocacy of unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam and a North Vietnamese victory. In 1968 he and others went to North Vietnam in a solidarity trip, and to arrange the release of a tiny minority of American POW’s, a propaganda coup for the North Vietnamese government.

Internally, Zinn gave his support to the black radicals in SNCC, as well as the militant new group, the Black Panther Party. He called all blacks in American prisons “political prisoners,” and said that the United States “has been a police state for a long time.” He also gave his backing to myriad far left groups, including the Maoist Progressive Labor Party, the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, and the Third World revolutionary nations of Cuba and North Vietnam. One did not need FBI reports to learn what he stood for. In a 1965 article found in the files, Zinn praised the New Left for having “no illusions about Reds,” and for seeing “Stalinism unmasked.” His position was one of “moral equivalence,” in which he equated the totalitarian East with the democratic West as evil centers of power, the United States being the most culpable.

Before long, he would write his book on America’s history which has found its way into many American homes and classrooms. A mega hit, the book put Zinn’s name before the public as a major cultural figure. No longer a Communist, history became a more effective vehicle for presenting his ideas.

“He who controls the past controls the future.” George Orwell, 1984

Update and an answer to some critics: Sat, Aug.7, 12:30 pm est

I have a new article on Zinn that takes a slightly different take than the blog. It is now available at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/aside-he-was-also-red [4] It may answer some of the points various commentators have made.

I do have two points to make. First, some have said that the American Veterans Committee was not a Communist front. True, it was born in the waning days of the Popular Front, but like Ronald Reagan who had himself joined it, those in the know got out when they saw that the Communists were trying to control it, and making good on their efforts. The group quickly faded away, along with the Popular Front. It was similar in character to the Hollywood artists’ group that ended up with only Communists in it, and became a group working for the Communist created 3rd Party candidacy of Henry A. Wallace.

The second point concerns the group “Negotiations Now,” which one person writes was created by Penn Kemble and the social-democrats. That may have been true, but the CPUSA supported it as well,and urged its members to join. It vigorously opposed both the Mobilization Against the War and the call for unilateral withdrawal or victory for the Viet Cong. A parallel took place during Jimmy Carter’s Presidency. At that time, DSA created “the Democratic Agenda,” a broad left group from which democratic socialists hoped to influence the Democratic Party.Mike Harrington convened a Washington DC meeting to coincide with the mid-term primaries. The keynote speaker was Bella Abzug. The CP asked Mike if they could attend. He said: “Anyone can attend. It’s an open event. You just can’t claim it’s your operation.” They did attend, were warmly welcomed byHarrington. The next day’s issue of The Daily World, the NYC CP paper, ran a headline saying “Communist Party plays major role at Democratic Agenca conference,” or something to that effect. It was untrue, but they coulde not resist heralding their welcome participation.


Article printed from Ron Radosh: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/08/05/howard-zinns-fbi-files-what-it-reveals/

URLs in this post:

[1] announcement: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

[2] quoted: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-30/howard-zinns-fbi-files-reveal-communist-allegations/

[3] column: http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/why_the_feds_fear_thinkers_like_howard_zinn_20100801/

[4] http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/aside-he-was-also-red: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/aside-he-was-also-red

Bill Gates, Racist

Bill Gates, Racist

Posted by Van Helsing at April 22, 2010 8:14 AM

What do you know: the people running America really are racists. The world's second richest man and first richest dorkazoid Bill Gates, for example:

Bill Gates has made his scholarship fund off limits to white teenagers. The Gates Millennium Scholarship fund is financed by a $1 Billion endowment Bill Gates made in 1999. The fund explicitly denies eligibility to white students.
"Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander American, or Hispanic American."

But then, from the liberal point of view, it would probably be discriminatory not to exclude Caucasians. So much for that "content of their character not the color of their skin" stuff.

bill-gates.jpg
World's richest racist dorkazoid.

14 September 2010

Obama bans kid from ever entering in the USA

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3135327/Obama-rant-Brit-banned-from-US-for-life.html


A BRIT teen who sent an email to the White House calling President Obama a "p***k" has been banned from America FOR LIFE.

The furious FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, his drunken insult was "unacceptable". Luke yesterday admitted he fired off a single email criticising the US Government after seeing a TV programme about 9/11.

He said: "I don't remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k. It was silly - the sort of thing you do when you're a teenager and have had a few."

Luke, of Silsoe, Beds, said it was "a bit extreme" for the FBI to act.

He added: "The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don't really care but my parents aren't very happy."

A Beds Police spokesman said: "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language. We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and went to see him. He said, 'Oh dear, it was me'."

Officers will take no criminal action.

Joanne Ferreira, of the US Department of Homeland Security, said there are about 60 reasons a person can be barred.

She added: "We are prohibited from discussing specific cases."

Manslaughter Case against Massachusetts Abortionist Begins Today

By Kathleen Gilbert

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091308.html

BOSTON, September 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The trial into charges of involuntary manslaughter against a Massachusetts abortionist whose botched abortion killed Laura Hope Smith, 22, begins Monday, exactly three years after the young woman's death, according to an Associated Press report.

Prosecutors charged Dr. Rapin Osathanondh of Cape Cod with manslaughter in July 2008 in connection with the death of Smith, 22, whose heart stopped during an abortion. Osathanondh resigned his license in February 2008, the same day the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine issued charges against him over the incident.

The board said that Osathanondh "engaged in conduct that calls into question his competence to practice medicine," including failing to monitor Smith's heart or "adhere to basic cardiac life support protocol," and failing to call 911 immediately after her heart stopped. The abortionist, said the board, also neglected to keep oxygen or a functioning blood pressure monitor in the room, and later lied to cover up his negligence.

A Boston attorney specializing in medical malpractice cases told the AP that bringing criminal charges in such a case was extraordinary, implying an extreme level of negligence, as most such cases are handled in civil court.

"The more extreme the action, the more extraordinary the negligence, the more likely it is that it may cross over that line where it also becomes criminal," said attorney Andrew Meyer.

Osathanondh will face the charges in Barnstable Superior Court.

13 September 2010

Cuba Lays Off Half a Million – Allows Private Enterprise

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 13, 2010, 2:49 PM

This will upset a whole lot of leftists.
Hollywood sure won’t like this news.

Commies and killers Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (Welt Online)

Let’s hope the Obama Administration is paying attention…
The Castro Regime announced it will fire at least half a million workers by the middle of next year. The murderous regime will also allow private enterprise.

Cuba says it will fire at least half a million state workers by mid-2011 and will free up private enterprise to help them find new work – radically remaking employment on the communist island.

The layoffs will start immediately and run through the first half of next year, according to an announcement Monday by the nearly 3 million-strong Cuban Workers Confederation – the only labor union the government tolerates.

To soften the blow, it said the government would authorize simultaneous increases in job opportunities in the non-state sector, allowing more Cubans to become self-employed, to form cooperatives run by employees rather than government bureaucrats and to increase private control of state land and infrastructure through long-term leases.

Hat Tip Ed S.

Maybe they just didn’t do it right?

Neda Soltani, symbol of the Iranian protests, was a Christian

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026843.php#respond
neda-kreuz.jpg

This is the poor young woman who was shot dead by Iranian security forces, and whose bleeding face became an image of the brutality and humanity of the mullahs. Now it turns out the Neda Soltani was a Christian -- a telling indication that the analysts who dismissed the protesters as simply wanting more Sharia, or better Sharia, or Sharia with a different face, were wrong: it just wasn't that simple.

It is also telling that the cross around her neck was cropped out when this photo circulated around the world.

Jihad Watch reader Andrea informs me that while "many had mourned her thinking she was a Muslim. According to some German press reports, it turns out she instead was a Christian:"

http://www.pi-news.net/2009/06/neda-symbolfigur-der-revolution-war-christin/

12 September 2010

Offensive and "art"

11 September 2010

Prison for Man Who Attempted Murder/Abortion on Pregnant Girlfriend

This doesn't make sence. So the baby is a human when the mother is attacked, but he is no longer a human when he is aborted? Is it ok to kill innocent humans lives by abortion methods?

The inconsistency of the life without God is glaring.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091006.html

By Peter J. Smith

LANCASTER, Pennsylvania, September 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Pennsylvania judge has sentenced a man to a year in prison for attempting to smother his girlfriend and abort their unborn child by shoving pills down her throat, reports the local Blackpool Gazette.

Proceedings in the Lancaster Crown Court show that Craig Connell attacked and tried to smother his live-in girlfriend Kirsty Rawlinson with a pillow after an argument in May. Two days later, Connell repeated the attack, this time forcing tablets into her mouth in what the judge surmised was “a futile attempt to create an abortion."

The judge said that Rawlinson must have been “horrified" and “ thought she was going to die.”

Violence against women carrying unborn children unwanted by boyfriends, spouses, partners, etc. was one of the leading factors behind the 2003 federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which classifies the unborn child as a separate victim when crimes are committed against the mother.

According to a 2001 Maryland study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "A pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause." The study’s authors, Isabelle L. Horon and Diana Cheng, found that out of 247 “pregnancy-associated deaths,” fifty (or 20 percent) were due to homicide. The next highest cause of death was “cardiovascular disorders,” at 48 deaths, or 19 percent of the total.

Approximately 34 states have laws similar to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, designed to punish attackers who might otherwise get a more lenient sentence by harming the mother but fulfilling their goal of killing their unborn child.

Had Connell succeeded in causing the abortion of his unborn child, he would have been subject to criminal charges for the child’s death. A Pennsylvania statute states “An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an ‘unborn child’ if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child.”

Earlier this year, Orbin Eeli Tercero, a pharmacist for the east-coast supermarket chain Wegmans, was charged in Pennsylvania for secretly inducing his mistress to miscarry their unborn child, because the baby’s birth would complicate his engagement to another woman. Tercero faced a number of criminal charges, including criminal homicide of an unborn child, first-degree murder of an unborn child, aggravated assault of an unborn child, aggravated assault, as well as charges related to evading capture and tampering with evidence. (see story)

More information on state laws related to fetal homicide can be found here via the National Right to Life Committee.

Transvestites Seek Right to Use Opposite Sex Bathrooms in Argentina

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

BUENOS AIRES, September 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Argentinean transvestites are objecting to new legislation proposed to create a third bathroom for their use in commercial establishments, according to local and international reports.

The proposed law, advanced by councilwoman Gimena Abonassar of the city of San Martín, is intended to protect women from men who enter their bathrooms dressed as the opposite sex, an increasingly common occurrence in certain countries.

"We're talking about creating a third bathroom to give a place to transvestites because of complaints by fathers of girls who were saying that they felt uncomfortable when they had to share the same bathroom," Abonassar told the French Press Agency in a telephone interview.

Although Abonassar says that local transvestite groups in San Martín support the measure, the national Association of Transvestites, Transsexuals, and Transgenders of Argentina (ATTTA) is objecting to it.

"We are against it because it seems to us to be discrimination," a representative of the association told the Spanish news agency EFE.

"The councilwoman should inform herself and legislate in favor of more integration, not to divide society," he added. "The only thing this measure achieves is more discrimination, and it is an example of the transphobia of many politicians, who don't really know what the people need."

The Ouija Board Really Works

26 August 2010

Feminism, Pornography, and Choice

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/24/feminism-pornography-and-choic/print

Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality
by Gail Dines
(Beacon Press, 256 pages, $26.95)

You may think you know what porn is. But there is a good chance you don't. In particular, if you are a woman, or if you grew up in the age prior to the Internet, the word "pornography" might evoke images of a blushing Playboy centerfold, or perhaps some flimsy-plotted film with a delivery man, a desperate housewife, and just a bit more sex and nudity than an R-rating would allow. In reality, mainstream pornography today is far more brutal, more graphic, and more violent than most could imagine if they hadn't seen it for themselves.

In her new book, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, Gail Dines draws on years of research to reveal just how extreme the porn industry has become. She takes readers deep into the world of hardcore porn, describing one nightmarish scene after another, full of men punishing and humiliating women sexually on camera.

The material she covers is truly shocking, and, often, difficult to read. I physically gagged more than once while reading her descriptions. Every sort of bodily waste and fluid, and every conceivable method by which a woman's body can be pushed to the limit, often at the hands of two or three men at a time, is commonplace in today's porn.

Forget about Hugh Hefner and his silk pajamas. These days porn is dominated by Gonzo filmmakers. In the Gonzo genre, the emphasis is on "real" rather than scripted scenes. Such films are cheap to produce. In the Internet age anyone with a camera and a computer can sell porn to the world. In order to stand out, porn producers are coming up with ever more extreme material. If the girl is crying, vomiting, or even bleeding, that's Gonzo gold. According to Dines, it is not uncommon for pornographers to film close-ups of the injuries that have occurred to the girl's body, once a scene is over.

Dines argues persuasively that porn today is not simply about men looking at naked women, or watching sex acts. Rather, the goal of much of it seems to be to depict the maximum amount of humiliation for the girl on screen. One website proudly offers its customers the opportunity to "access total degradation."

Almost as disturbing as the abusive material itself is the fact that so many men view it as a turn-on. Like drug users always looking for a more powerful fix, porn addicts are often shocked by how quickly they became desensitized to porn, seeking out increasingly bizarre material that they once found distasteful.

The average age of first exposure to porn for American males is eleven. Internet porn now serves as a de facto sex education for America's youth. To suppose that porn is mere fantasy, with no effect on the real world, is simply not credible. Dines reports that many young women come to her, complaining that their boyfriends expect them to act out the humiliating scenes they see in hardcore porn.

Dines is a feminist. She makes no effort to hide the fact. Her fierce opposition to porn is motivated chiefly by her objection to the sexual inequality it depicts. However, as a self-described "progressive," she finds herself uncomfortably aligned with social conservatives on the issue of pornography. Consequently, she has the tiresome habit of gratuitously singling out conservatives for attack, as though she were anxious to reassert her liberal bona fides. (Gee whiz, did you know Mitt Romney sits on the board of Marriot Hotels; and Marriot sells porn on pay-per-view?)

Dines also seems to have a problem with capitalism. Pornography is "first and foremost a business," she writes in one weighty passage, as though that fact alone were enough to damn the enterprise. Admittedly, smut peddlers are a greedy lot. But Dines never says exactly how Karl Marx might save our sexual culture. Once again, her main point seems to be that she is not a conservative.

It is easy to see why Dines and other anti-porn feminists have a hard time reconciling their "conservative" views on porn with their liberal views on personal choice. Feminists, after all, have been saying for a long time that a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her own body. The question is: if a girl allows a man to urinate on her on camera in exchange for a thousand bucks, can a feminist really approve the transaction merely on the basis of the girl's consent?

Porn pits the principles of choice and equality against one another. As a liberal, Dines believes the basis of morality is the unrestrained freedom to choose any sort of lifestyle one desires. As a feminist, she also believes that gender equality is an inviolable moral standard.

In her epilogue entitled, "Fighting Back," Dines articulates feminism's moral confusion thusly: "We need to offer an alternative way of being, a way to envisage a sexuality that is based on equality, dignity, and respect." (This is her expression of equality-based morality.) She goes on to say, "Such a sexuality cannot be scripted by a movement because it belongs to individuals and reflects who they are and what they want sexually." (This is her expression of personal choice-based morality.)

Choice is the holiest word in feminism. To comprehend a moral order that originates outside the domain of personal choice, one must acknowledge a higher law -- one above human will. As a liberal, the very idea of a revealed moral standard conflicts with Dines's commitment to personal choice. Dines understands that porn is wrong; but I don't think she really understands why.

What is wrong with porn is that it debases the modesty and dignity of the human beings who make it, as well as those who consume it. In the sixties, feminists spent so much energy throwing off the strictures of religion and tradition. They never realized that chastity itself was a form of power. They never realized that the moral restraints they discarded were vital to the equality they so desperately wanted.

"Bras are a ludicrous invention," declared Germaine Greer in her 1970 feminist hell-raiser, The Female Eunuch. Two years earlier, the mythical burning of the bras at the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City had signified feminists' rejection of the strictures of male-dominated society -- especially in the realm of sexual mores.

The disappearing bra soon became a metaphor for feminism itself. The image is all too fitting. No metaphor could better capture the way in which feminism has left women exposed, when all along it was supposed to bring their liberation. By embracing sexual liberation as a fundamental tenet of the women's movement, feminists embraced the irreconcilable aims of getting under men and getting out from under them at the same time.

Feminists preach moral self-determination as an article of faith. The porn-saturated culture we now live in is, in this sense, of half their making. And for the same reason, Dines is unable to offer any real solution to the problem she articulates. Nevertheless, her book deserves attention because the porn industry is currently doing hardcore damage to an entire generation of young people, both conservative and liberal alike. If you have a strong enough stomach to read Pornland, you will gain a new appreciation for just how poisonous pornography is to our sexual culture.

Letter to the Editor

Nathan Harden blogs about higher education at National Review Online.

22 August 2010

Pro-Life Leader: Treating Unborn as Non-Persons Key to Planned Parenthood Agenda

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – What do serial killers, slave-owners, eugenicists, and abortionists have in common? According to Michael Hitchborn of American Life League, all these groups can only carry out crimes against human beings by first de-personalizing or trivializing the humanity of their victims.

In a new ALL report released on YouTube, Hitchborn makes his case beginning with the famous 1991 film “Silence of the Lambs,” where a crazed transsexual killer pursued by an FBI agent (Jodie Foster) continually refers to his latest female victim as “it.”

In doing so, says Hitchborn, the killer “depersonalizes his victim, reducing her to the status of an object or animal.”

“The thing is, if his victim isn’t a person, then in his own mind, there is nothing wrong with what he is about to do,” continued Hitchborn.

The pro-life leader explained that a similar process of depersonalization and dehumanization is evident in the way that abortion advocates speak of a child developing in its mother’s womb as a “fetus”, “fertilized egg”, or a “clump of cells.”

“The use of terms like these is the first step in reducing humans to the status of non-persons,” he added, saying history was replete with such examples.

Hitchborn referred to a clause within the U.S. Constitution prior to the enacting of the 13th amendment, where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. The agreement he said was a compromise with a culture that “viewed human slaves as property.” Proponents of slavery would claim that slaves were not people, and eugenicists of the 19th and 20th century would do the same thing, referring to those with disabilities or of certain ethnicities as “undesirables.”

Taken to its logical conclusion, these ideas led to the forming of the Nazi racial purity movement, which defined certain people as “subhuman” in popular propaganda.

“The excuses, and they are excuses, for denying the humanity or personhood of individual human beings is done for one reason and one reason only: it is the only way to create a class of humans without any rights.”

Hitchborn said that Planned Parenthood, just like slave-owners, has to offer similar arguments dehumanizing or depersonalizing the unborn in order to justify their actions, with a motive for profit at the end of the line. Hitchborn told LifeSiteNews.com that “Planned Parenthood’s sole agenda is to gain money through the murder of children.”

Hitchborn pointed to a Planned Parenthood White Paper written in 1985 and republished in 2002 in response to the pro-life film “Silent Scream.” The paper argues that a “fetus” of 12 weeks gestation “cannot be compared in any way to a fully formed functioning person” – arguing that the unborn child’s dependency on his mother for survival, its undeveloped organs, and lack of conscious thought, means he does not merit the status of person.

“It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.”

Planned Parenthood said they were responding to Silent Scream, because they feared it could jeopardize the “constitutional right to abortion” as well as “the lives and careers of abortion providers.”

“It really is a simple concept,” Hitchborn told LSN. “The only people making the argument that a human is not a person are those who want to create a class of subhumans that have no rights.”

Hitchborn praised the personhood initiative in Colorado, which is a ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution to recognize the personhood rights of all humans, from their biological beginning to their natural death. The amendment states: "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

“The personhood initiative out in Colorado ties in perfectly with what [pro-life groups] are doing, because they are working on establishing an amendment that would recognize there is no do distinction between that which is a person and that which is a human,” said Hitchborn.

“They are establishing that we are all human, and that we are persons: that we all have a beginning and that beginning takes place in the womb, and not outside the womb, or some random spot on the spectrum by people who have an agenda to fulfill.

“There is no distinction between a person and a human, and the only people that make that distinction are those that have an agenda.”

View ALL’s full report with Michael Hitchborn here.


See previous coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Personhood Initiative Certified For Colorado Ballot
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032904.html

21 August 2010

Vast Majority of Peruvians Opposed to Homosexual Unions

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

LIMA, August 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The vast majority of Peruvians are opposed to homosexual "marriage," according to a new poll conducted by the Peruvian Company for Market and Public Opinion Studies (CPI).

Seventy-one percent of respondents said that they were against the creation of homosexual "marriage," while only 21 percent approved, and seven percent refused to answer.

Polls in Argentina and Mexico, where measures establishing homosexual "marriage" have been passed at the national and local levels, also show strong majorities against the concept.

The poll undertaken by CPI comes in the wake of "civil union" legislation proposed for homosexual couples by members of two different political parties. The EFE Agency reports that the bills have stirred a national debate over the issue.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081901.html

Obama Administration Stonewalls Full Release of Major Abstinence Study

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is withholding the full results of a government study that makes a strong case for promoting abstinence before marriage over sexual education promoting “safe sex.” While the executive summary and final results are available, behavioral scientists are not being allowed a look at all the data behind the study’s major findings.

The HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) funded a national survey of 1,000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 and their “most knowledgeable parent.” The objective of the study was to examine the relationship between parent attitudes and levels of communication with adolescents and their behavior, as well as the effect of peer attitudes.

The executive summary revealed that 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.” Another 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do."

The response of adolescents showed slightly more permissive attitudes, although the majority still agreed with the elder generation. Just over 60 percent agreed that “Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do," while just under 60 percent agreed that “It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.”

The key findings also showed that “attitudes” of parents and peers toward sexual intercourse were key in an adolescent’s choice to abstain from or engage in sexual intercourse. It found that “conservative parent attitudes were strongly associated with conservative adolescent attitudes.”

Notably, the study also found that increased levels of communication about sex actually had no impact or a negative impact on youth’s sexual attitudes. Specifically, it found that higher levels of parent to adolescent communication about sex “were not associated with any differences in adolescent attitudes.” Also, when communication about sex is greater among adolescent peers, the study found that these were associated with “less conservative adolescent attitudes.”

The study concluded that, while adolescents in abstinence classes increased parent-adolescent communication, these had “no influence on adolescent attitudes” – again indicating that parental attitudes were far more influential.

"Adjusting for all other factors in the model, parent and peer factors are more consistently associated with differences in adolescent attitudes about sex and abstinence than are measures of adolescent exposure to sex and abstinence topics in a class or program,” stated the American Public Health Association in its findings. “Additionally, parent attitudes are more important in influencing adolescent views than the level of parent communication with their adolescent."

But the problem for behavioral researchers is that the Administration is not releasing the full study, which could offer insight into how to encourage teen abstinence in order to reduce teen pregnancy, out of wedlock births, and the epidemic of venereal disease.

Researcher Lisa Rue, Ph.D., a specialist in adolescent behavior, wrote an editorial in the Times Call revealing that the HHS had blocked her repeated requests for the full detailed study, including a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to Rue, the HHS said they would not release the full study because they were “pre-decisional and deliberative" – a claim Rue said she found hard to believe, since the study has been publically mentioned at least twice.

"We have to know cultural norms and values before we ever do any kind of research, or develop initiatives," Rue said. "If you ignore that, you're ignoring a premise, a key premise in evaluation science and research."

Rue suspected the full details were being withheld because they would undermine the Obama administration’s priorities on sex education, which do not include sexual abstinence or address the issue of fatherlessness in children’s lives.

Rue concluded, “At this point in time, we must ask ourselves: Is this valuable process being suppressed by those who wish to repress American values in an effort to exert control over sex education offered in the United States?"

The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) reports that individuals interested in requesting the study can file their own FOIA request for the full report. Those who wish to fill out such a request can visit the HHS website, or consult the NAEA website on how to file the form correctly.

Click here to read the available results of the HHS study.

16 August 2010

Stewardship Warfare

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Galatians 5:9)

Most of us have seen ripples created from a pebble dropped in a pond. They also make good illustrations of what atheistic and naturalistic science does to truth.

The Bible uses a number of illustrations about the importance of getting rid of the source of the problems. The psalmist cried out for strength when he saw the enemies destroying foundations (Psalm 11:3). Jesus warned about the "leaven" of false doctrine (Matthew 16:12). And the prophet noted that if the stump is left, the tree will grow again (Daniel 4:23-26; contrast with Luke 3:9). These principle illustrations warn us to focus on the cause of the error, not the symptoms.

It is tempting to go after only the symptoms. The pain of abortion, pornography, flagrant promiscuity, widespread STDs, easy divorce, victimless crimes, political corruption, and so on are very real and terribly destructive. But the core rationale in the educated Western world for all the anti-God, anti-righteous, anti-authority beliefs is atheistic and naturalistic science.

Ephesians 6:12 explains that the real battle is "not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." A great part of biblical stewardshp must involve direct opposition toward these "rulers of the darkness."

Our "intellectual" world needs the evidence that will expose the atheism in naturalistic science. Christian leaders must not only be trained biblically, but also in a defense of the faith "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). That work is extensive, time-consuming, and expensive, and those called to so labor must have the prayer support of other Christians. Please consider co-laboring with us. HMM III

14 August 2010

The sucess of multiculturalism

13 August 2010

Costa Rica's Top Court Prohibits Referendum on Homosexual Unions

Says permitting vote would aggravate discrimination against homosexuals

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

SAN JOSÉ, August 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Costa Rica's Constitutional Court, the nation's highest tribunal, has ruled that citizens cannot vote on the issue of homosexual "civil unions" because "people who have relations with the same sex are a disadvantaged group that is the object of discrimination."

Rejecting the arguments of pro-family groups and the nation's Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the court voted 5-2 to prohibit such a vote, claiming that it would "deepen and aggravate discrimination" against homosexuals.

The Court's decision cancels a referendum on the matter previously scheduled for December, for which over 150,000 signatures were gathered in recent months. The referendum was called in response to proposed legislation to create "civil unions" for homosexual couples, which would give them the same rights normally reserved for married couples.

The bill, which is known as Legal Project 16390 and not yet been subject to a final vote, has been condemned by the Costa Rican Catholic bishops' conference, whose flock includes the vast majority of Costa Ricans.

Denouncing the legislation in September of last year, the Costa Rican bishops wrote that "we are facing a bill that intends in practice to equalize" homosexual unions, which, "is manifestly against articles 51 and 52 of the Constitution, in which matrimony is the essential base of the family, and has the right to the special protection of the government. The equalization of unions of people of the same sex with matrimony is therefore unconstitutional."

07 August 2010

The "confrontational tone" of Chris Christie

Reporters vs. Conservative Black Leaders at Press Conference

05 August 2010

Another Whopper: Obama Claims Father Fought in WWII

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More