The Party of Gendercide and the Words of Abraham Lincoln

Thursday, May 31, AD 2012

Live Action today released a second video showing that Planned Parenthood, an organization that I have designated  Worse Than Murder, Inc, has no problem with sex selection abortions.  Go here to read my post on the first gendercide video released by Live Action.  Today the House failed to muster the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the  Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act which would have banned this unspeakable evil.  The Obama administration opposed the bill.  Obama has never found any form of abortion he opposes and Planned Parenthood has his complete allegiance.  In the House 276 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, 7 against.   Democrats voted 161 in favor of gendercide and 20 against.

The core of the Democrat party today is abortion.  The vote on gendercide demonstrates just how extreme this allegiance is.  As in the days of slavery, the Democrat party champions the notion that we can, in good conscience, ignore the rights of portions of the human race, and that the unborn, like the slaves of old, are mere property and may be destroyed at the mother’s will and whim.  The words of Lincoln should be our battle cry against this old evil in a new form:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to The Party of Gendercide and the Words of Abraham Lincoln

  • BRAVO! This made me tear up! I am a sidewalk counselor for a pro-life group and everyday the media and the Left just beats us down. Thank you for posting this! God Bless you!

  • Thank you Ashley for being a sidewalk counselor. That is the most difficult, and essential, service in the pro-life cause. I tear up also when I read the words of Lincoln in the above passage.

  • This is so appalling & scary as it reminds me of China.

  • What has always perplexed me is that Catholics and Blacks, as a general rule, have always marched lockstep with democrats! Yes, the left changed the language, rewrote history and owns the rest of the media. That is the reason that most sheeple vote democrat, but how many examples do these people need to convince them that this is the party of death and destruction. These dems are really communists. Oh, and voters DO have a choice – they can always vote for the better choice on the Republican side. Educate yourselves for Goodness Sake!

Question: If they trust women, why don’t they trust mothers?

Wednesday, May 30, AD 2012

SHOCKER: Teens need their mothers. Mothers can help their daughters. Even in crisis.

There’s an article forthcoming in the journal Economic Inquiry by Professors of Economics, Joseph Sabia and Daniel Rees, that shows parental notification or consent laws are associated with a 15 to 25 percent reduction in suicides committed by 15- through 17-year-old women. The researchers analyzed National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data collected from 1987 to 2003 and found results that are consistent with the hypothesis that laws requiring parental involvement increase the “expected cost of having unprotected sex,” and, consequently, protect the well-being of young females. (Hey, they’re economists.)

Here’s the reasoning, taken from this paper by the same authors.

  • Researchers have already found, using state-level data from 1981 through 1998, that parental involvement laws reduced teen gonorrhea rates 12 to 20 percent among teen females. (Klick and Strattman, 2008)
  • Other recent studies provide evidence that female adolescents who become sexually active at an early age are more likely to suffer from the symptoms of depression. (Hallfors et al. 2004; Sabia and Rees 2008)
  • Research has shown that multiple sex partners increased the likelihood of substance abuse. (Howard et al. 2004)
  • It is also been found that adolescent females who had multiple sex partners were 10 times more likely to develop the symptoms of major depression than those who remained abstinent. (Hallfors et al. 2005)
  • There was no evidence of a similar relationship between male multiple partners and adolescent depression. (Hallfors et al. 2005)

So the hypothesis is: If parental involvement laws discourage minors from risky lifestyles that affect their physical health, then they would promote emotional health of teenage females as well. Analyzing suicide rates will give an indication since there have been many studies that link depression and suicide. The national suicide data was analyzed and that’s exactly what they found – a supporting correlation. Parental involvement laws correlate with fewer suicides. Further in support, there was no evidence of a similar relationship among male adolescents, and no correlation between parental involvement laws and suicide for older women because, well, neither group would be affected by those laws.

Makes sense, right? You’re probably thinking, “Did we need to pass those laws, wait and see what happened, and then count suicides?” No, we didn’t, and there’d be at least some justice if the people opposing those laws would take notice.

You’d think someone who really cares about women would be able to take an objective view of this data and consider it as an appeal to our collective conscience. You’d think someone who parrots, “Trust Women!” would be consistent enough to also trust mothers who are raising teens. When the state comes between teens and their parents, it just follows that the adolescents will not be as close to their parents as they ought to be.

This only affirms what we already know. Parents of teen girls can be trusted – should be trusted for the psychological benefit of a daughter in crisis. The abortion advocate community doesn’t seem as concerned about young women, though, as they are about politics and agendas. They instead say that people just want to make it harder for teens to have abortions, and that teens have a “fear of abuse” from unrelenting parents. Oh, and they’ll say something about how correlation doesn’t equal causation, revealing that they either are ignorant of analytical methods or, even worse, knowledgeable of them but dishonest when the results don’t fit their predetermined conclusions. Some will even say that teen women should be trusted to make their own decisions even when the decision for these desperate young women is to end their own lives. Of course, we all know why Planned Parenthood doesn’t want the parents involved. Ac$e$$ to abortion.

So I have a little hypothesis of my own. I predict (but would love to be proven wrong) that not a single abortion advocate will come forward and honestly reassess parental consent laws even though there is no body of data to support their premise. Could they admit that maybe, just maybe, the default condition is not that most parents of teens are abusive. Imagine!

If they trust women, why can’t they trust mothers and fathers? Where does this automatic distrust of parents come from anyway? Perhaps there’s a cost associated with believing that a mother has the right to kill her own child in the womb, and that cost is faith in people to love their children unconditionally at any point in life, even during difficult times.

H/T:  Michael J. New at National Review

Image: Microsoft Powerpoint

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Question: If they trust women, why don’t they trust mothers?

  • Informed sexual consent, legal maturity, begins at emancipation, like voting, driving a car and signing any kind of contract. All persons’ unalienable, endowed civil rights are held in trust for them by God, by their parents and finally by the state, in this order. A minor person becomes a ward of the court if their parents neglect or abuse their civil, unalienable rights. The court acts “in loco parentis” in the best interest of the child. A minor child, without legal informed sexual consent to give becomes pregnant. Because of her pregnancy, the court declares that the legally minor, un-emancipated pregnant child to be emancipated by the very proof that the child is a minor and incapable of making legal decisions for herself, or of giving informed sexual consent, or valid consent to any surgical operation. The court overrides any parental notification by legally kidnapping a minor child by making the minor, pregnant child a ward of the court by declaring the child emancipated by the fact of her pregnancy without proper notification of the child’s parents, who have a naturally vested legal interest in the child. The court does this to a child who may be pregnant and does so to abort the child’s parents’ grandchild.
    Overriding naturally vested parental rights entrusted to parents innocent of any proved wrongdoing is contrary to American jurisprudence and constitutes legal kidnapping by the state, false imprisonment and restraint.

  • A great post.

    “Where does this automatic distrust of parents come from anyway?”

    I think maybe distrust of parents comes along with the strengthening of the “youth culture”. Maybe some of it comes from whole gnerations going to public schools and getting together with their peer posses. When they were educated at home things were a bit different and maybe mom and dad ‘s opinion had a stronger influence.

    Charles is in charge. Two year olds are in charge.
    The two First Children of the POTUS are in charge. What do you decide about gay marriage girls? Ok.

    Children are a target market; recognized at economic deciders in families. TV and movies are more and more juvenile because that is who the customers are.

  • To be fair, there are some appalling parents out there, and many girls who have abortions got into trouble in the first place because they didn’t have trustworthy parents. But.

    But for the pure and simple public health and safety of minors, parental consent needs to be secured for any kind of serious medical event, much less for abortion. If I were pro-choice, I’d want parents to at least have as much control over abortion as over teeth cleaning.

  • I think parents who prove that they can be trusted have children who trust them. I’ve seen people with open and loving relationships and it comes from parents willing to listen instead of lecturing. If you want that kind of relationship with your child that they will come to you, you need to be the kind of person that someone would want to go to for advice. Anyone, not just your child. If you have proven yourself to be judgmental, you cannot blame a child for not going to you for advice, or with their problems. after all, would YOU go to a friend with your problems if you knew rather than listen to you they were going to force their values on you rather than take yours into account?

Live Action Shows US The Real War on Women

Wednesday, May 30, AD 2012



Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  The intrepid Lila Rose and her colleagues at Live Action expose the real war on women waged by Planned Parenthood, I have designated that organization as Worse Than Murder Inc., in regard to sex selection abortions:

AUSTIN, May 29 – Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. “The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.” Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to “just continue and try again” for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

“The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe,” notes Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. “Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant.”

Six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of “missing girls” in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not. On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Live Action Shows US The Real War on Women

Pro-Aborts at Record Low

Wednesday, May 23, AD 2012

Pro-lifers at my alma mater, the University of Illinois, explain why they are pro-life in the above video.  They are on the cutting edge of a cultural shift on abortion that is magnificent to behold.  The Gallup poll on abortion released today illustrates this.

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Pro-Aborts at Record Low

  • So tell me: if a majority of Americans were to democraticly vote pro-life – that is to say, outlaw abortion in an election – would the Democrats then support democracy?

    Don’t think so. The last thing they want is liberty.

  • As has been said many times before, future generations are going to look back with horror at our generation, for the wholesale slaughter of innocents that we have initiated and watched – many with disinterest.

  • Abortion seems like something which shows who truly loves people and those who expect return from what they do.

  • From the “Catholics for Choice” leader’s Feb 18 WaPo editorial as given from the link:

    “[The fetus] may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event….”

    How can anybody say that one life is somehow unequal to another? This is the fascist view, completely contrary to “all are created equal” and the idea that also underlies the acceptability of genocide, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps and slavery.

    At least there’s a recognition that murder is somehow “morally significant.” Maybe that will eventually save this woman from eternal perfidy, but there’s going to be a very long spell in Purgatory.

  • Thanks McClarey, that last sentence there got me alittle choked up here at work.
    Had to quickly hide my face so that no one would see.
    My wife and I are about to have our first miracle July 10th.

  • Here is a blog comment from our local abortion mill. Is anyone convinced? I especially like the part about “honoring” your pregnancy by having the little one shredded.

  • I hate to be the bearer of not so good news, but if you look at the last stat – Circumstances under which abortion should be legal – the numbers seem pretty consistent over time (52% under some circumstances, 25% under any circumstances, 20% under no circumstances). It appears “pro-choice” has gotten the bad rep it deserves, and fewer people want to self identify as such (much like “liberal”). So while fewer want to label themselves as pro-choice, functionally there is still a sizeable majority that believes abortion should be legal at least under some circumstances (77%). On the bright side, at least now that “pro-choice” appears to be a dirty word, maybe more folks will actually start thinking about what the “choice” we are allowing to take place actually entails.

  • The vast majority of the 52% that say legal under some circumstances are probably thinking of rape, incest or the life of the mother, in other words an infintesimal portion of current abortions. I think the poll indicates a functionally pro-life majority of 72%. The culture is shifting on abortion and this poll reflects that shift. We ban abortion in all but the so-called hard cases and then we build a majority to ban it in all cases. We get there by baby steps.

  • “I think the poll indicates a functionally pro-life majority of 72%.”

    But the liberal progressive Democrats will never ever give up the “right” to murder whom they so willingly create by their sexual promiscuity.

  • Ah but we will never give up either Paul, and there are more of us and the disparity in numbers will only increase in our favor as time goes on. The pro-abortion movement is the only movement I can think of in history fighting solely for the right to slay their own kids. Additionally, the pro-abortion mentality is fundamentally a creation of the latter half of the twentieth century. Christian opposition to abortion has existed for two millenia. I would not bet on the staying power of the pro-aborts in the long run.

  • Paul, Don, to borrow from Darwin…

    Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don’t survive.

  • Good point big Tex I think there was a group of people a long time ago that thought that reproduction was immoral, they are undoubtedly gone now.

Cutting Off Planned Parenthood IS About “Ideology”

Tuesday, May 8, AD 2012

Just recently, Arizona joined Kansas, North Carolina, and Texas in cutting off all funding to Planned Parenthood. For Governor Brewer, it is a simple matter of “common sense”, respecting the repeated desire of the majority of Americans to be exempt from funding abortion with their tax dollars. For pro-life advocates, it is about scoring another direct hit against the largest symbol of “abortion rights” in the United States. Here is how Planned Parenthood sees it, however:

“Many in the legislature will never know what it’s like to feel a lump in their breast and have to worry about the cost of a doctor’s visit,” said Bryan Howard, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona.

“This is the reality with which many Arizona women are faced, at the hands of a legislature determined to reduce access to prevention care while pursuing its ideological political agenda,” he said.

Why should those of us who are pro-life deny it? We are pursuing an ideological political agenda, as of course are they. Our ideology, if you really want to call it that (and I typically don’t), is that every human being has a right to life from the moment of conception until the moment of death. Some of us differ on whether or not, or under what circumstances, a human life may be justly taken, but we all agree that the killing of innocent children inside or outside of the womb is a grave moral evil and cannot be tolerated by a just and humane society. This is an “ideological political agenda” worth pursuing, and I’m not ashamed to say so. Without respect for human life, society will degenerate into something more cruel and callous than the jungle.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Cutting Off Planned Parenthood IS About “Ideology”

  • Bonchamps: This is beautiful. “However did the world and the women within it survive before Planned Parenthood emerged as the sole guardian and guarantor of “women’s health”?

    The truth is that there is no reason whatsoever why abortion must necessarily be tied to the other medical services that PP provides.”

    Bryan Howard of PP says so much when he conflates the killing of babies and “a lump in a woman’s breast” as “prevention care.” Intellectually and practically dishonest.

  • When Roe approached the Supreme Court seeking legal sanction to destroy the other sovereign person in her womb, she acknowledged that the other person was not a blob of cells, not a tumor, not an unwanted pregnancy but an unwanted human being. The human being unborn became the ward of the court subject to protection. The Court claimed that it did not know if the unborn was a person deserving of protection. The court must give the benefit of the doubt. The Court cannot claim to bestow life and unalienable rights upon the sovereign person still in the womb as does article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights of the united Nations.
    Official Document
    Article 1.
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
    Our Declaration of Independence says that persons are endowed with unalienable rights by “their Creator” after being “created equal”, and are secured the blessings of Liberty by Divine Providence.
    Our tax dollars may not be used to deconstruct our Declaration of Independence.

  • Bonchamps – Are you familiar with Jonah Goldberg’s new book? It’s called The Tyranny of Cliches. The main point is that the Left depicts itself as pragmatic and its opponents as ideological. The Right is perfectly willing to admit to its ideology.

    I remember Michael Medved making a similar point. Once he was appearing on the Today Show. The guest in front of him was a Hollywood type who was talking about her career, and her “humanitarian” work: the nuclear freeze movement. That’s when it hit him: the left always wins these kinds of conversations, because they depict themselves as humanitarians.

  • I heard about the book, Pinky.

    I have to say, though, that the right has its fair share of cliches as well. And I wasn’t particularly thrilled about one of the cliches I saw in early blurbs about the book. Apparently we shouldn’t think that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”; that’s an apparently bad left-wing cliche. Except I think that one happens to be perfectly true.

    It soured me a little on the book. But I’m sure it makes plenty of fine points otherwise.

    I’d broaden the net a bit; the left portrays itself as scientific and the right as mired in backwards theological obscurantism.

  • This is why I always challenge left-wingers to provide coherent accounts for their moral positions. Science can’t prove that something is right or wrong.

  • Bonchamps –

    “I have to say, though, that the right has its fair share of cliches as well.”

    Goldberg would agree with you.

    “And I wasn’t particularly thrilled about one of the cliches I saw in early blurbs about the book. Apparently we shouldn’t think that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’; that’s an apparently bad left-wing cliche. Except I think that one happens to be perfectly true.”

    Blurbs are just as untrustworthy as cliches. The meat of an argument (if there is any) takes more than a few sentences. But let’s be honest; one man’s terrorist is not necessarily another man’s freedom fighter. Some terrorists oppose human rights and representitive government. The cliche is dangerous because it inhibits an examination of the specific terrorist’s goals. There are some goals that are compatible with civilization, but there are some that aren’t.

    Now, taking this a step further, I’m guessing (maybe incorrectly) that you don’t actually think that cliche is true; you just disagree with the people who oppose it on the grounds that you suspect that their opposition to it implies a more activist foreign policy. If you want to argue about foreign policy, fair enough. But accepting a cliche because you’re comfortable with its implications – or rejecting it because you’re uncomfortable – doesn’t address the question of whether it represents reality.

  • ” But let’s be honest; one man’s terrorist is not necessarily another man’s freedom fighter.”

    Who said “necessarily”? It just happens to be the case sometimes, depending on how one defines those terms.

    “Some terrorists oppose human rights and representitive government. ”

    And some cultures do not define freedom, justice, or goodness in terms of human rights or representative government. There is negative liberty; there is also positive liberty. Depending on your vision of liberty (and other things considered good often associated with it), you may well see someone fighting for a communist state or an Islamic regime to be a “freedom fighter” – especially if those goals are obstructed, in reality or by perception, by the direct or indirect involvement of another nation (even one that claims to represent and fight for liberty itself!). In that case they would be fighting for the freedom to determine their own destiny as a people, which may not include freedom as the once-Christian West understands it.

    “The cliche is dangerous because it inhibits an examination of the specific terrorist’s goals. ”

    I don’t think it is “dangerous.”

    “Now, taking this a step further, I’m guessing (maybe incorrectly) that you don’t actually think that cliche is true”

    No, I do think it is true, because it is a fact that people have different conceptions of freedom. Of course I think that the one offered by the Church and set forth in the Declaration of Independence is the highest conception of freedom, the true one, the correct one. But the “cliche” simply acknowledges that there are people who don’t think that way. So I do think it represents reality.

  • Some might argue that terrorism is just a military tactic too. But the word has a lot of negative connotations and few would describe a group whose goals and causes they considered just as a “terrorist” group. The Mujaheddin was a “terrorist” group fighting Soviet occupation; it didn’t prevent Ronald Reagan from saying that they were the equivalent of the founding fathers.

  • Pingback: Vatican II Chant Polyphony Safe Abortion Council of Florence | The Pulpit
  • Re: necessarily
    You’re the one arguing that there’s an identity between one man’s terrorist and another man’s freedom fighter, so yes the word “necessarily” is apt. Either there are or there aren’t objective standards by which to identify terrorists and freedom fighters. Either justice is an artificial construct or it’s not. Based on your article I have to assume that you believe in objective justice. That’s why I assume that you don’t really believe that terrorism and freedom fighting are interchangable, or that a traditional understanding of right and wrong can be abandoned without serious ramifications.

  • I don’t want to quibble over semantics. At least not the semantics of “necessary.” Perhaps I misunderstood your intention with that word. Moving on to the substantive point:

    “Either there are or there aren’t objective standards by which to identify terrorists and freedom fighters.”

    I don’t think it is that simple. From a sociological point of view, both “terrorism” and “freedom fighter” can have very broad meanings. I don’t think acknowledging this means that I don’t believe in objective justice or abandoning a “traditional understanding of right and wrong.” The fact of the matter is that, in reality, there are actually some people who identify a given group as a terrorist group, and others who would identify the same group as freedom fighters. The “cliche”, as I see it, simply acknowledges this reality.

    Now if the cliche is employed with the intention of justifying moral neutrality in a given dispute, of course I would reject it. As a mere description of how things are, though, it is perfectly accurate.

Surprise: Anti-Catholic Bigot Heads Pro-Abort Organization

Sunday, May 6, AD 2012

Anti-Catholic bigot, homosexual activist and Episcopalian minister Harry Knox is back in the news.  Long time readers of this blog will recall that President Obama appointed Knox to his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships back in 2009.  Go here to read a post on that appointment.

Knox has recently become the head of  the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  He has a post on the Huffington Post explaining why religious people should support the slaying of children in the womb, a post which proves, once again the truth of Socrates’ adage that an unexamined life is a tragedy.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic  former Episcopalian, and a man who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, gives one of the arguments of Mr. Knox a proper response:

A homosexual Episcopal minister named Harry Knox is set to become Führer und Reichskanzler of the national organization of Einsatzgruppen America the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and while explaining why “religious” people should be celebrating abortion rather than mourning it, wrote one of the five or six stupidest statements I’ve read this year:

The harsh and condemning judgments of some religious leaders are troubling. They suggest that abortion is morally wrong, while ignoring the fact that miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies are common.  They deny that God is present in these times

Let’s take that one out for a spin, shall we?

(1) The harsh and condemning judgments about dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran are troubling.  They suggest that the complete annihilation of Iran’s largest city and every single man, woman and child in it is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that hurricanes and tsunamis regularly destroy cities and kill innocent people.  They deny that God is present in these times

(2) The harsh and condemning judgments about setting off that bomb in a crowded city are troubling.  They suggest that terrorism is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that volcanoes regularly explode, killing thousands of people all over the world.  They deny that God is present in these times.

(3) Your harsh and condemning judgments about me boinking your wife are troubling.  They suggest that adultery is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that more men and women have sex outside of so-called “wedlock” than in it.  They deny that God is present in these times.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Surprise: Anti-Catholic Bigot Heads Pro-Abort Organization

  • “One can only imagine what He will have to say to a purported minister of His Gospel who adopted such a stance.”

    He may not say anything. “…Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” John 8:6b

    And their response will be as follows, “…they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest…” John 8:9.

    The only place they will have to go away to isn’t Heaven.

  • Harry knox’s mother thought abortion to be morally wrong for she brought him to birth, uinknowing who or what her son would become on earth. Also, Harry Knox’s father ought to have been involved in his son’s destiny. Harry Knox dishonors his parents. To be a minister of the Word and disobey God’s commandment to “Honor thy mother and thy father that thou shalt be long lived upon the face of the earth.” is an indication to what kind of job Harry Knox is going to do. Our tax dollars deserve better use.

  • Paul,
    The reason Christ wrote in the dirt that second time is found in the Douay Rheims version in Jeremiah 17:13:
    ” 17:13 O Lord, the hope of Israel:  all that forsake thee shall be confounded:  they that depart from thee, shall be WRITTEN IN THE EARTH…”
    In my opinion, Christ, who wrote Jeremiah 17:13, was writing each man’s name in the dirt with a clue to each of them ( e.g. name of a female) that told each of a hidden sin in their past.
    That is why they walk away one by one and in order of decreasing age because Christ writes each name and clue in order of descending age. But there is mercy here ( not in Jer.17:13 context) because each man may repent after having their self righteousness removed. Each already knew their hidden sin that was not hidden from Christ because Jeremiah 17:1 reads…”  The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond, it is graven upon the
    table of their heart…”

  • Gosh Mr. Knox, thanks! I can now stab my annoying neighbor in the chest and call it a heart attack! Woot!

  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that condoms do not prevent HIV/aids. The FDA says that HIV/aids and all viruses pass between the molecules of the material, a scientific fact. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that SOME protection is better than none. The only way to use a lethal condom properly with HIV/aids is total abstinence as Pope Benedict XVI has proclaimed. Read: “Do Condoms leak HIV?” Does Harry Knox accept that he is guilty for every person who has contracted HIV/aids through his advocacy? Does Harry Knox accept that there is an Eighth Commandment that says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”? And a Fifth Commandment that states: “Thou shalt not kill” even through HIV/aids advocacy? If Harry Knox is a minister of the Word of God, He needs to minister to the Word of God by telling the truth. Concealing and withholding the scientific truth about HIVV/aids and condoms from the taxpayers is criminal. Distorting scientific fact does violence to the common good and to the will of God through abortion, promiscuity and disease. Our tax dollars deserve someone who is who he says he is. If Harry Knox takes an oath of office he is a perjurer.
    My immediate response to Harry Knox’s indifference to HIV spread is that he is infected.

  • This can be an amusing and diverting activitie.

    Here’s my corollary to Knox’s moral deviance.

    Everyone will rightly condemn the following: “Make the World a better place. Shoot a liberal in the face.” Let’s give it the “Knox Treatment.”

    The harsh and condemning judgments of some religious leaders are troubling. They suggest that shooting liberals is morally wrong, while ignoring the fact that shootings and armed assaults are common. They deny that God is present in these times . . .

    Knox is either dumber than dirt or so controlled by evil as to be unable think rationally.

    A religious person might contemplate miscarriage and ascribe it to God’s will.

    God is not present with baby murders. The baby murderer violently acts against God’s will and denies the victim God’s creative act.

    What an evil idiot.

  • Is a homosexual taking the lead in an antiabortion mocment somwhow equivalent to a blind mind taking charge of a gun club? Perhaps he sees his new role as advancing the gay anti “breeders” hate campaign.

  • I do hope this is not to off topic but did anyone else notice the man with the bag on his head?

  • Valentin says:
    Sunday, May 6, 2012 A.D. at 7:29pm
    I do hope this is not to off topic but did anyone else notice the man with the bag on his head?
    That was no bag.

  • Yeah it was a bag. The bag guy who was on the panel to the side of Knox in the video was called “Moses” and supposedly was a homosexual from Nigeria fleeing persecution. The bag over his head was a media attention getting device, although the purported reason was to protect his identity.

  • I think the whole coexist unitarian is not a group to trust at the school I go to there was once a couple of boys whose dad ran the local unitarian church and he would not let them eat meat (how tolerant) because he was a vegetarian so at the school the staff members would let them eat the food that they had there so they eat tonnes of meat at the school and eventually started looking like shining Adonises and their decided to pull them out and move his whole family to Mexico because he was inspired by nature and when they got there he left them there and ran off with some mistress.

  • I am sorry there is supposed to be a “dad” in between “their” and “decided”

  • Harsh and condemning judgements trouble Harry Knox. Murder of babes, soaking the earth with blood, cannot be morally wrong when the cause is so common. Abuse of Free Will is God’s fault. He shouldn’t have given it to the human race because it doesn’t want to be held responsible for justifying its insanity. If the kids want to cheat in school, then take risks with the lives of others for what they’re supposed to know; well cheating is common, so tragedies of failure and error should be allowable, not accountable. Blame whoever sheds light on – yes, even Harry Knox – right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, sane and insane. That’s the way it goes.

    Just wondering about the root of the word Episcopal – is it tied to Epistles, such as are found in the Holy Bible?

  • Episcopal derives from the Greek episkopos. Yes, it’s in the New Testament.

  • Donald, it is not a surprise that Obama has appointed yet another “Chief Advocate of the Culture of Death”. You should all have seen it coming. By now, Obama’s Evil design on Humanity is as clear as the Sun at Noon. He is mocking God with every breath he takes and each beat of his heart. Yes, and Jesus HAS WRITTEN IN THE EARTH about him and his cohorts. He wrote and continues to write IN THE EARTH for those Sinners whom He knows – as only God can know – who will never, ever repent because they sold their souls to the Devil a long time ago.

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION | The Pulpit
  • bill bannon,

    Thanks for the insight.

  • Huh. Minor mystery.

    The NAB translation of Jeremiah 17:13b is very different most other bibles:

    “The rebels shall be enrolled in the netherworld; they have forsaken the LORD, source of living waters.”

    Virtually every other translation has something along the lines of “those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.”

    There is almost always a good reason for the word choice in NAB, but this one is escaping me.

    The Hebrew verb is ‘kathab’ and the various meanings are shown here, mostly supporting the translation ‘written’ where NAB uses ‘enrolled’:

    The Septuagint uses ?????????? which I would suspect also supports ‘written’.

    Also, NAB’s choice of ‘netherworld’ where other translations use ‘earth’ or ‘dust’. But what’s really baffling is that NAB’s footnote to John 8:6 references RSV: “Cf. Jer 17:13 (RSV): “Those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water”; cf. Jn 7:38.”

    Anyway, thanks again to Bill for bringing this up.

  • He’s not just anti-Catholic; the guy is also anti-sequitur. I read the original column of his at HuffPo and every bit of it was as poorly-reasoned as the example given above.

  • We can do these all day: The harsh and condemning judgments about beating my wife, perhaps to death, are troubling. They suggest that wife-beating is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that wives are beaten, occasionally to death, all over the world. They deny that God is present in these times. Call it the Harry Knox defense.

  • Episcopal (episcopos) and Epistle (epistole) are only related in the Greek – linguistically – by their preposition starting the words. Epi… has several meanings but upon or over are a basic hit.

    Their root words are different – EpiSCOPOS is related to seeing, thus the bishop’s office is one of oversight. EpiSTOLE is related to the word “to send.” Thus it is something sent to (upon).

    They are both in the New Testament because functionally for the faith the ARE related, as the Epistles are letters which the teaching office (magisterium) of the Episcopacy sent to their “flocks.” Thus, to use them correctly in a sentence: I certainly hope the Episcopal conference in the U. S. would send more epistles with the quality of the recent document on our first freedom!

  • And yes – I noticed I’m not perfect with my grammar. I’ll blame it on the construction happing in my office right now.

Baby as Parasite

Friday, April 20, AD 2012



Over at the Huffington Post a diarist blogging under the name Sasharusa helps explain why babies in utero are treated like so much disposable garbage by so many people in our society:

This is Giardia lamblia. It is an intestinal parasite that is very common and is a pain in the ass to rid of.

I know, I know, it doesn’t look like a precious little baby. I know. It looks scary, and gross, and looks like it will bite your head off. But we’re not talking about looks. Who knows, maybe aliens think we’re ugly as f–k but this parasite would be labeled Miss Universe in their culture? Who knows! Anyway, I am sorry for plastering this as the very first thing in my diary. Consider this just like those exploited photos of miscarried late term fetuses that Anti- Choicers parade around.

Anyways, back to the whole fetus= parasite thing. That is how I see them. I don’t see them as cute and cuddly. I see them as terrifying and scary. I see pregnancy the same way.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Baby as Parasite

  • Time to weep. LIFE clothed in flesh. Pay it forward.

  • Clicking on that link to the Huffington Post would make me feel like I hit on a porn website, so I’m not going there.

    “Sasharusa” is indeed in need of prayers, but I don’t believe what this person posted. As for “anti-choicers”, those lamebrains are the true anti-choicers. Do you think they favor freedom of choice for schools? Or buying a car with a big V8 engine that runs on natural gas with room for a family? Or living where you want? Or choosing your own dmaned health care plan?

    No, Sasharusa and that ilk don’t believe in any of that. They live in an echo chamber and confuse opinions with intelligence.

  • Every sovereign person alive was begotten as an innocent virgin including this dreadful person writing terrible things that makes indecent individuals of those people invited to spend some time here on earth. Those pesons who renew the face of the earth with Joy, Justice, innocence and LOVE. These people (in utero) love because they have not been taught how to hate. If they are fearsome, remember man that you are fearsome and wonderfully made. These children make mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, community, nations and universes. Homo sapiens. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The human being, called, accused falsely, of any crime, any insult, will triumph because of his virginity, innocence and JUSTICE.

  • The devil has no soul, because the devil has no body, no human body. This individual substance of a rational nature is GROWING according to the dictates of his immortal soul. Expalin that Sasharusa.

  • Every piece like that provides the contrast necessary for the lost to find God.

    Joseph reminded his brothers that their intended evil was used by God for good. I think that happens more than we realize because it is only in looking back that we recognize Providence.

    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God. So it was under the Roman Empire and so it is today. Sasharusa doesn’t know that her evil rant will be turned to good but I trust that it is so.

  • Beware whom you call a “parasite.”

    When I think of liberals, parasite comes to mind.

  • @ G-Veg:
    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God@

    Sounds like my compost pile. It is full of rot and cow poo but when it is spread out on good soil, it produces the most luscious fruit. We need to stand firm; God is working and His people are listening and preparing for the good fight.

    Lord, give us holy priests…shatter and bring to naught all that might tarnish the sanctity of priests, for you can do all things.

  • I have been involved with the Right To Life movement since before it became what it is today. These poor souls are out here. They have been out here since before R v W. Does anyone remember(if your as old as I am) being taught to “die for your faith”? At the time the sisters said, “there are many ways you will be called to die for your faith. You may not be brought before a firing squad, or burned at the stake. But you will be called.” As a young child I just thought that was sooo dramatic. Now I know what they meant. Yes, we may be brought befor a firing sqaud befor it’s all over. We are being called right now to die for our faith. We have had such a long period of wandering in the desert of not having the guidance, the leadership of our hierarchy. Many of whom fell right into the lock step of the progressive think tanks. Some who were a PART of them. I believe we are as close to losing our freedoms as we have ever been in the history of our country. If you want to get a thumbnail of how this has happened and how deceptively this movement towards communism has “snuck up on us”, which of course it has not, please read “Righteous Indignation” Excuse Me While I Save The World, by Andrew Breitbart. Starting at chapter 6 he really gets into a rundown of where and how this has been promulgated upon the masses. The beginning of the book is boring but it does lead up to this very good outline. At the time of the first warning signs of abortion on demand in this country many of the original pro life activists learned of these things. It was virtually impossible to talk about at that time. The response was always,” Oh that’ll never happen in America!” Well it did, and “they” are very close to achieving their goals. There is only one way out now, Pray Pray Pray, and yes be prepared to “Die For Your Faith” and the unborn.

  • I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera. I will not pretend that traditionalist Catholics are innocent. I have looked all around and I have seen unpleasant facts.

    Look at the burning of Giordano Bruno. Look at the right-wing firing squads in Spain and Latin America. Look at the shoveling of Jews into ghettos. Look at the demonization of women as temptresses and witches who need to be silenced. Haven’t these and other facts repulsed people? Haven’t these and other facts led people to believe that the Church erases humanity?

    How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church? Please do not assume that I am an enemy of the Church. I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church.

    P.S. Paul, are you referring to liberals as parasites? Aren’t liberals human beings? Furthermore, I have yet to see every single liberal referring to unborn children as parasites. I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

  • It seems to me that if one takes the idea that fetus = parasite seriously, and additionally finds pregnancy ‘terrifying and scary,’ then one would certainly want to avoid any sexual interactions, given that this terrifying state only comes about by that means.

    After all, if one knew that one had a high likelihood of contracting an actual parasite by eating a certain thing or walking barefoot in a certain place or whatever else, it would be perfectly reasonable to avoid all those scenarios- we might call such precautions and abstinence a mark of intelligence, whereas if someone deliberately continued to engage in them there would be little else but to presume them a fool.

    So if this analogy is going to have any currency, and if the parasitic nature of pregnancy is so remarkably terrifying, those who profess such an understanding should be (one would think) on the forefront of abstinence practice and endorsement.

  • Perhaps I should have added this. I abhor referring to unborn children as parasites. I also know that there may be much more to the history than what I related. The point that I wanted to raise was that the Church has MUCH baggage. I do hope to see the Church given the grace to face that baggage head-on. Why have I not left the Church? I do try to find Jesus in the Church.

  • Brian Cook: I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

    How about as a punishment?

  • I do not debate or otherwise have dialogue with liberals, but perhaps Dr. David L. Schindler’s “The Repressive Logic of Liberal Rights: Religious Freedom, Contraceptives and the ‘Phony’ Argument of the New York Times” at Communio News would rebut the assertion, “I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease”:

    Because liberals (being secular atheists or otherwise of that temperment) believe man is evolved from ape, and hence an animal, of course to them might makes right and an embryo is simly a parasitical collection of cells. But a truly authentic Christian realizes that man is created in the image and likeness of God Almighty, and that implies and necessitates responsibility and accountability. The liberal, being liberal, thinks he / she may engage in sexual intercourse like a wild baboon in heat without any consequence for his / her action, and nanny government is supposed to pay for his / her contraception or abortion (or failing that, the government may compel the Church to so pay). A truly authentic Christian on the other hand knows that God will hold him / her responsible and accountable, and knows that all human life derives from that same God from moment of conception to death.

    Other than that, I have nothing to say to the liberal.

  • “but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera.”

    Yes, by people who do not want to focus on what really bugs them, which generally boils down to the fight of the Church against abortion and the refusal of the Church to bend and say that homosexual sex is morally good. The Church has been around for 2000 years and critics can find plenty to point to where Catholics have not lived up to the teachings of Christ. However, the critics usually have an appalling lack of knowledge of the history involved, often are quite comfortable with the enormities of our day while passing judgment on those of the distant past (beam and speck problem) and are simply not being intellectually honest. If what bugs a critic is the belief of the Church in the sanctity of life then battle us about abortion and don’t babble about the Albigensian Crusade or the “oppression” of lesbian nuns in 13th century Perugia.

  • “I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church. ”

    Stick around and read and comment Brian. The search for truth and goodness is a necessary pursuit and you may find some here.

  • When, in Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Person of Jesus Christ was refused acknowledgment in the public square, the soul of Christ was denied to us, making of all persons, beasts of burden, parasites, anything the fallible state calls us, slaves of a fallible, mortal disease, punishment. Every person in this generation may be described by Obama’s definition as a “punishment”. To end the “punishment” we must return Jesus Christ to His proper place as Sovereign King in our hearts, our minds and in our country. Unfortunately, abortion, ending the punishment by ending our neighbor’s life, making war on the unborn, human sacrifice replaced love and charity and generosity.

  • Wow…I’m not a fan of pain myself, but for crying out loud, grow up, lady. Millions of women have done it before and will continue to. Your grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma before her weren’t sissies, or you wouldn’t be here.

  • enness. Let’s go over this again. When the person of Jesus Christ was denied to us, many of our brothers and sisters in the womb were denied their sovereign personhood and were murdered. With the return of the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, our sovereign dignity will be acknowledged by the government and our culture. My ancestors had this same problem with the communists in Poland. Instead of welcoming a new life , the mother and child were HATED. There is no separating Jesus Christ from His people and this is being done to the detriment of the newly begotten. And as you say “women have done it before” but only their enemies ripped the child from their wombs. In America, our representatives rip the child from the womb, call our unborn punishments and diseases, as though the human soul does not exist and with our tax dollars. Why is that?

  • I think we have less to worry about from kooks like Ms Rusa who regard the infant as a literal biological parasite. After all, God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) has devised absolutely marvelous mechanisms to see the mother and baby safely thru pregnancy. Those who decline to participate in the natural imperative to colonise the future are self-selecting out.

    But industrial capital capitalism and consumerism have transformed children from blessing to burden (economic parasite) and thence to luxury item. For the large percentage who “wait until we can afford children” IVF, surrogates, &c become necessary.

    Who knows? Perhaps new technologies will move economic activity back into the home where children will again be an asset.

  • I heard someone the other day on a chat TV show talk about the IVF procedure and the “host” carrier. Seriously folks, doesn’t this give you cold chills? Why, they even said sometimes the original egg producer could carry the embryo.

    How do you get this horse back into the barn?

  • Mr. Cook, I do not believe that you would want to get into a debate with me about the firing squads in Latin America – of whom I am sure you consider to be “right-wing”.
    The Spanish Civil War is a very complex time in history and the people Franco opposed and defeated were not as pure as the driven snow…far from it.

    Latin America has been a place of political extremism and violence since before the conquistadores set foot in the Western Hemisphere. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and were hated by the Indian tribes they ruled over. Cortez would not have overthrown the Aztec Empire without Indian help.

    Those who point out the Latin American firing squads are usually silent about Castro, the FARC or the Sendero Luminoso, the three who are to blame for most of Latin American bloodshed over the last half century.

    Babies are not parasites. Babies are not burdens. The fact that some people believe these lies does not make them truths. They believe they can have it all – the expensive imported luxury car, a high powered career, annual vacations in exotic places, etc. For them, a child is a burden. When they are old, they will be considered a burden to the younger taxpayers of that time.

  • “How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church?”

    Mostly in places and in ways that don’t get as much media attention as the bad stuff, and for the most part are spearheaded by lay people rather than priests or nuns (with some exceptions) so they aren’t as closely associated with “the Church” in the public mind. Are you familiar with the Sisters of Life religious order, or with the work of the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune, for example? Were you aware that one of the founders of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, eventually became a Catholic and ardent defender of life, as has Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade?

  • Brian CooK: “I do try to find Jesus in the Church. ” IN the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.

  • Pingback: logic pro-choice pope benedict XVI cardinal ratzinger |
  • Pingback: Michelle Obama: Forget Our Unprecendented Attack On Religious Liberty We “Made History”

Obama’s Justice Department Agrees to Pay $120,000.00 To Pro-Life Protestor Over Frivolous Prosecution

Monday, April 9, AD 2012



Hattip to Tina Korbe at Hot Air.  The complete contempt that the Obama administration has for the civil liberties of Americans was exemplified in its prosecution of pro-life protestor Mary Pine.


The Justice Department has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

Mr. Holder unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Ms. Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (PWC) abortion mill (or any other “reproductive services” clinic).

After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised in a scathing ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp for filing a case with no evidence.

Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Obama’s Justice Department Agrees to Pay $120,000.00 To Pro-Life Protestor Over Frivolous Prosecution

  • Thank God for Ms. Pine and her courage (and attorneys).

    I’d like to know what personal responsibility Holder and his minions bear for such frivolous cases under the law and what would stand in the way to prevent such abuse of discretion in the future?

  • Prosecutors Paul can be held personally liable but it is extremely difficult. Go here for a good overview:

  • As the Arbiter and Supreme Justice of that Divine “Department” of Justice, God Himself will hold Eric Holder and Barack Hussein OBama accountable.

  • People like Holder and Obama don’t seem to care what God has in store for them. It is their loss. Holder pulled of a most difficult task – being a worse Attorney General than Janet Reno.

  • I would like to second Paul D. Thank God for Ms. Pine and her attorneys. I also am grateful they didn’t get some crazy judge. Who knows what could have happened

  • Penguins Fan,

    I agree. However, I came across the following last night as part of my evening devotional:

    “To the choirmaster. Of David. 1* * The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. 4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? 5 There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. 7 O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.” Psalm 14

  • This is what they did to Mr. Joe Scheidler. This is posted at Creative Minority Report in response to Rebecca Taylor. If this is unacceptable then, please remove it but my shouting is in capital letters.
    “Our current situation began with this bit of rationalizing about “reproductive rights” not actually in the Constitution by the US Supreme Court and it continues unabated:
    “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
    LOOK, LOOK, AT WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID: “unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” OR BEGET A CHILD, OR BEGET A CHILD, OR BEGET A CHILD MEANS THAT A CHILD BEGOTTEN IS A CHILD BEGOTTEN. The child begotten is a child begotten, not a clump of cells, not the product of conception, or the contents of the womb, A CHILD BEGOTTEN, A CHILD BEGOTTEN WHEN TWO BECOME ONE, A SOVEREIGN PERSON, A HUMAN BEING COMPOSED OF IMMORTAL, RATIONAL SOUL AND A HUMAN BODY IS A CHILD BEGOTTEN.
    Planned Parenthood has been swindling us.
    In Engel.v. Vitale, the SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE ATHEIST “COULD GO HER OWN WAY”. The newspapers bannered PRAYER BAN. The atheist has been swindling us since then, taking away our civil rights to acknowledge our Creator of unalienable rights, our freedom of speech to God, our freedom of press and peaceable assembly by describing prayer as a crime. FREEDOM

  • Ome should be worried. The DOJ still sent a message much like it sent a message when refusing to prosecute Black Panthers in Philadelphia for voter intimidation. Thuggery is disguised in business suits and while Ms. Pine benefitted from a good referree in Judge Ryskamp, the next Ms. pine might find herself before Judge Ideology.

  • I’m guessing we haven’t seen the last of this sort of thing. After all, the 120K
    settlement is only taxpayer money– Holder, the PWC and the attorneys prosecuting
    Mary Pine are not themselves out any cash. For them, I’m sure this episode is merely
    an opportunity to refine their skills at harassment and intimidation, at no cost to

    I agree with Cthemfly25: the DOJ succeeded in sending its message to those who
    would inconvenience the abortion industry. Next time the case might be decided in
    the court of a judge more amenable to the ideology of the administration.


Andrew Breitbart Addresses Students for Life

Thursday, March 1, AD 2012

At C-PAC on January 10, 2012 Andrew Breitbart, who died today, explains how he became pro-life.  Brietbart always understood that the struggle over the culture was more important that the political battles, although they were very important.  Adopted as an infant, and the father of four kids, Breitbart understood how the pro-abort dominance of the arts and entertainment helps sustain the pro-abort cause.  Something for us all to remember and to work to change.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Andrew Breitbart Addresses Students for Life

  • I pray to God that I someday will have a modicum of the courage that Andrew Breitbart possessed. The Adoption message is very close to home in our household and sadly it is rarely discussed in the general world. The militant secular world is obsessed with abortion because it reflects their hatred toward God and life. Let’s never forget that their hatred is really directed, not at us but God Himself, which by our faith and our belief in life is the only way they can project their true hatred. I have had too many conversations with militant secularists in which at the end of the day, I found this to be oh so true.

    Servant of God, Father Patrick Peyton the Rosary Priest and founder of Family Theater in Hollywood truly believed that Hollywood would eventually be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. It may sound ludicrous now, but Christian hiding in Rome in 310 AD would have thought the same thing if you told them that within their lifetimes Rome would be the center of the Faith. In the1940s, Father Peyton saw the filth long before others did and believed it would end and be replaced by faith.

    My trips to speak at Family Theater in Hollywood were some of my favorite stops. Talk about faithful people shining the light in a midst of a cesspool. I really looked forward to finding a way to connect with Andrew on my next visit out there later this spring when my next book, “The Tide Continue to Turn Toward Catholicism,” was scheduled to come out. I had heard so much about him and I really wanted to meet him. Sadly that won’t be the case. However, I pray that he will be assisting those from above who will continue his struggle to bring truth to a world being told lies by the mainstream media. We certainly will need lots of help and prayers with the latest attacks on Faith emanating from the corridors of power. Andrew left behind a wife and four children. In addition to our prayers for him, let us not forget his family.

  • This must be seen. A modern day warrior!

    Andrew Breitbart Memorial: “Man Against The Mob”

Ross Douthat’s Readers Prove his Point

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

I can easily imagine from their comments how much it galls the typical readers of the New York Times to read opinion pieces by Ross Douthat.  Today he explains to his reader the extreme media bias on the issue of abortion.

Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person — and certainly no self-respecting woman — could possibly question or oppose.  

Go here to read the rest.    To pro-lifers this is very old news.  It is hysterically funny however to read the comments to his piece:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ross Douthat’s Readers Prove his Point

Marco Rubio Gives Passionate Pro-life Speech

Sunday, February 5, AD 2012

This is an issue that, especially for those that enter the public arena and refuse to leave our faith behind, speaks to more than just our politics. It speaks to what we want to do with the opportunity we have been given in our life, to serve and to glorify our Creator.

                                                                         Marco Rubio


Video of Senator Marco Rubio (R. Fla.) delivering the keynote address on February 1, 2012 at the Susan B. Anthony List Fifth Gala for Life.  If  Rubio isn’t the Republican vice-president nominee this year, despite his disclaiming of any interest in the office, the GOP leadership is crazy.  He is eloquent, youthful and a brilliant defender of life.  His nomination will seal up Florida, gain the Republicans a larger share of the Hispanic vote than they have ever garnered before in a Presidential race and bring enthusiasm and hope to the ranks of social conservative voters.

Tying this speech in with his sponsorship of  the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 this week, Rubio is clearly signaling that if he is placed on the ticket he intends to champion issues near and dear to the hearts of Catholics.  Obama decides to use the Church as a punching bag in order to appease his leftist base.  Rubio counters with a defense of the Church and Life to draw a stark contrast.  Obama will soon have his Yamamoto moment:


Continue reading...

7 Responses to Marco Rubio Gives Passionate Pro-life Speech

  • Thank you for sharing this Donald!

  • Yes, thanks! I hope very much that he’s the VP nominee too.

    Here’s something to make you smile: Imagine Rubio vs. Biden in a debate….poor old Joe.

  • It probably says something that I was mildly offended at comparing Obama to Yamamoto– IIRC, he knew it was a bad idea and did it because he was required to; Obama seems to think thinks are a good idea and does them even when required not to.

  • Yamamoto had no use for politicians Foxfier, so no doubt in the world beyond he was also offended by the comparison, never mind that the words he is quoted as saying in Tora, Tora, Tora, although reflecting his sentiments, he never said. 🙂

  • What a thoroughly engaging and inspiring man.

    More of these please, America.

  • While I am heartened to see Senator Rubio speak in defense of life, I found the way he did troubling. He falls into the trap many pro-life politicians do. He speaks of the life issue as separate from the other issues when in fact they are interdependent. The idea you can have real lasting economic prosperity without respect for life given that people are the most important economic resource is just plain crazy. Same with national security. After all, how can you expect to field a strong military when you kill almost a third of military aged people before birth. The correct way to talk about this issue is make clear that this is not a single issue issue. Pro-lifers constantly fall into the single issue trap.

    As to the freedom of conscience act, this is exactly what the left wants us to do. What this is an unwitting erroneous admission that the First Amendment doesn’t say exactly what it says. If the left is going to openly and brazenly violate the Supreme Law of the land, why wouldn’t they violate some freedom of conscience act.

    If you want to see Marco Rubio have a political future, the last thing you would want is for him is to be a running mate for either Gingrich or Romney. At this point, it looks like Romney’s gonna run away with the nomination. As VP, Rubio would have to carry the water for a far less than conservative president. This would pretty much ruin his chances at making a future presidential run as a conservative. What Rubio ought to do is use his present position in the Senate to make a run for the Governorship of Florida and use that as a platform to make a presidential run. Not as a Veep for a weak president.


Bias? What Bias?

Sunday, January 29, AD 2012


The bias of most of the main stream media is well known, but a current example by CBS is beyond parody:

Over the years, pro-life activists have come to accept that the media isn’t interested in their annual March for Life in Washington D.C. protesting abortion, even though it routinely attracts hundreds of thousands of people. But this year’s photo slideshow hosted on a local Washington CBS website has activists scratching their heads in disbelief.
 Currently the March for Life slideshow of seven photos features protesters who actually support abortion; none of the photos actually feature pro-life marchers.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Bias? What Bias?

  • What is this “CBS” of which you speak?

  • For the hollow sound of a little empty laughter.
    C ensorship B y S atan.

  • Wow, PM!!! You sure have got it right CBS is the Voice of Satan. But, hey, nothing to worry about. The Truth is never killed……it always triumphs in the end. They can censor and distort the desire of Americans to do away with Infanticide and respect the sanctity of Life from Conception to Natural Death, but eventually we shall win because we are fighting for God.


A Baby by any Other Name

Friday, January 27, AD 2012

Hattip to Pat Archbold at Creative Minority Report for the video gently lampooning the twisted language employed by pro-aborts to attempt to deny the humanity of the unborn.

George Orwell, who literally wrote the book on how totalitarian regimes use language to serve evil ends, would have loved the video.  Although an agnostic and an opponent of the Catholic Church, Orwell was also not only an enemy of the dishonest use of euphemisms, but also an ardent foe of abortion.  This section of his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936) indicates how deeply he hated abortion:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to A Baby by any Other Name

  • “The strong emotional reaction of Orwell’s character, Gordon Comstock, is precisely the way in which any decent human being should view abortion.”

    Abortionists are not decent human beings.

  • Ah, but through conversion and repentance they can become decent human beings Paul. The late Bernard Nathanson was an example of that and I could name others. We will win this fight through many means, and the conversion of some of our opponents is not the least of them.

  • Donald, this sentence, to me is the core of our Catholic Teaching against abortion…” “Whatever happens we’re not going to do that. It’s disgusting.”…Though I agree with you and believe that there is no hardened soul that the Holy Spirit cannot melt, we need tons of prayers before the Merchants of Death hear the cry of the unborn whom they dismember in their safest first home – their mothers’wombs and be converted into respecters of God’s Gift of Life for all…..Yet, I fear we are still far way off before the tide turns. There is a lot of money being made in this Infanticide Industry and the secular media is another collaborator in this Murder Most Foul Crime. And until you change the current Government and swipe the slate clean of Obama, Biden, that Clinton Woman and the Planned Parenthood, I see very hard and cruel times ahead. I call this bunch and the pseudo Catholics in your Government High Priests of Satan

Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

Monday, January 23, AD 2012

In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to extinguish it.

                                  Justice Byron White-Dissent in Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973)


SAY not the struggle naught availeth,

The labour and the wounds are vain,

 The enemy faints not, nor faileth,

And as things have been they remain.

 If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;  

  It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,

Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,   

And, but for you, possess the field.

 For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,

   Seem here no painful inch to gain,

Far back, through creeks and inlets making,   

 Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,

When daylight comes, comes in the light;

In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!  

  But westward, look, the land is bright

Arthur Hugh Clough

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth

  • We do know the end of the story – Revelation 19:11-21. Jesus wins, Obama and the pro-aborts loose.

  • Pray for the conversion of sinners and America. And, you won’t be going to Heaven if you vote democrat PERIOD.

  • My great admiration for Byron White is tempered somewhat by his decision to wait to retire until a Democrat was President and could nominate his successor (White having been nominated by a Democrat, JFK). The result was Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer, I forget which. The result was replacing an anti-Roe Justice with a pro-Roe Justice.

    With the Court’s current split likely to be 5-4 in favor of upholding Roe, such choices as White’s make a big difference. A pity he didn’t give as much thought to how his replacement would come down on the issue as did some of the pro-Roe Republican appointees who waited to retire until a pro-Roe Democrat president could appoint their successors.

  • Pingback: U.S. PRO LIFE EDITION |
  • Jay, I’ve heard it said that Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and others were pro-life until the political wind shifted the other way. Could White have been affected similarly, in which case it might have been a calculated decision to wait rather than something to which he didn’t give much thought?

  • Could White have been affected similarly, in which case it might have been a calculated decision to wait rather than something to which he didn’t give much thought?

    Doubtful, Brian. He voted with the minority in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. That was the Supreme Court case upholding Roe when Justices Souter, O’Conner and Kennedy joined in on what is, in my opinion, the most horrendous decision ever handed down by the Court. White joined with Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist in wanting to overturn Roe. The case was decided in 1992, a year or two before White retired.

  • Thank you Paul. In light of that, his decision to want to be replaced by a democrat appointee seems odd.

  • White was always a firm vote against Roe. He also indicated that he felt most comfortable during his tenure at the Supreme Court during the Rehnquist court. White was in good health when he retired, but he was 76 and I wonder if he just thought that it was time to go. Here is a section from his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986)

    “If the woman’s liberty to choose an abortion is fundamental, then, it is not because any of our precedents (aside from Roe itself) command or justify that result; it can only be because protection for this unique choice is itself “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or, perhaps, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” It seems clear to me that it is neither. The Court’s opinion in Roe itself convincingly refutes the notion that the abortion liberty is deeply rooted in the history or tradition of our people, as does the continuing and deep division of the people themselves over the question of abortion. As for the notion that choice in the matter of abortion is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, it seems apparent to me that a free, egalitarian, and democratic society does not presuppose any particular rule or set of rules with respect to abortion. And again, the fact that many men and women of good will and high commitment to constitutional government place themselves on both sides of the abortion controversy strengthens my own conviction that the values animating the Constitution do not compel recognition of the abortion liberty as fundamental. In so denominating that liberty, the Court engages not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own, extraconstitutional value preferences.”

Peter Kreeft Calls a Spade a Bloody Shovel

Monday, November 28, AD 2011


We live in a low, dishonest age where blatant evil is protected with euphemisms.  I take heart whenever anyone stands up against this meretricious trend.  I therefore applaud Dr. Peter Kreeft, Boston College Philosophy Professor and a Catholic convert, for his remarks at a speech sponsored by the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin on the subject of whether a Catholic can be a liberal.  He minced no words when the subject of abortion and the Kennedy clan came up:

During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political  dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors  had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for  Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences.

Kreeft said these Catholic advisers “told the Kennedys how they could get  away with murder.” Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening,  suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could  support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic  Church than pedophile priests.

“These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people  who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God,” Kreeft said. “Sorry, that’s  just the way it is. In fact, I’d say these were even worse than the child  molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because  they did it deliberately, it wasn’t a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that’s straight from the  devil.”

A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Peter Kreeft Calls a Spade a Bloody Shovel

  • Coincidentally, dying milltowns in Massachusetts became a destination for poor immigrants where there was a growth in welfare benefitted lifestyles, with increases for children born to these unmarried beneficiaries. No Mr. & Mrs. or Mother & Father has become commonplace. Gangs of these children form alternate families and battle to the death. Our nation provides not only abortion, but also a means to the destruction of family through legislation. The glamor of evil and its voting block.

  • I love the message — Dr. Kreeft is a great apologist and writer — but was thrown off by the title of this post. To “call a spade a spade” is to call things by their right names without regard for tact or sensibilities, which is what Dr. Kreeft did; am I missing a point or a play on words?

  • it is my way Anthony of underlining what he did. In England that is the way the phrase is expressed and I have always been fond of that usage:

  • Truth!

    God bless Professor Kreeft.

  • Donald
    Your link to the background says that none of the theologians held abortion to be moral but they advised legalization. Could their contradiction revolve around safety. Abortion is never safe for the child …legal or illegal; but illegal abortion is also unsafe for the mother. So could this advice really be rooted in safety though it turned out to be naive in that legalization exponentially increases the number of abortions? But the link has the theologans seeing abortion as immoral not moral. Oddly Augustine and Aquinas held for state’s allowing prostitution lest in Augustine’s view, worse lust takes place…apparently adultery and rape and seduction of non prostitutes. Vatican II seems to have rejected their position though.

  • Very good question, Bill. I do think that whether an immoral act should be criminalized is usually a matter of prudence. But try as I might, I just cannot imagine a justification for the legalization of abortion that does not rely on assigning insufficient gravity to the evil of the act. There is an indifference to the life of the unborn that can only be regarded as either very irrational or very callous.

  • Mike
    I agree with you totally. I’m just wondering whether at that time period the theologians were thinking aggregate abortions would not increase in number and legally done would be death to the child but safety to the mother rather than jeopardy to both. New York City now has the abortion rate of Red China now without its being coerced as in Red China.

  • I know basically zero about Theology. However, I would question anyone who would make murder safer for the killers. I would look up “consequentialism.”

    Plus, I have some highly uncharitable thoughts about them theologists that thunk that way.

  • “So could this advice really be rooted in safety though it turned out to be naive in that legalization exponentially increases the number of abortions?”

    I think the advice was rooted in sheer political expediency Bill. Feminism was on the march and was a crucial element in the liberal coalition. I think the late Jesuit Robert Drinan was typical of this ilk. He served in Congress from 1970 to 1981 and was an unfailing pro-abort vote, including public funding of it. Here is an excerpt from a debate he had with Jerry Falwell where the Baptist preacher defends Catholic teaching on abortion and Drinan completely ignores it.

    “FALWELL: It’s shocking to me that you, a Roman Catholic priest, are part of a church that condemns abortion and calls it murder, as your pope did very courageously in America last year, how you could support federal funding for abortion absolutely in contradiction of everything the Church stands for . . . .

    DRINAN: The Supreme Court said that there’s a constitutional right in a couple, or in a woman, to have an abortion. Can the federal government say that we are going to restrict and constrict that particular right? . . .

    FALWELL: If the Congress, the Constitution, and the executive branch all legalized abortion, you and I as men of the cloth have a higher authority, in my opinion, and that is almighty God and the Word of God, and the church we represent. And all three in both instances—your church and mine—condemn abortion as the taking of human life, and I cannot see how you could possibly justify your position as a man of the cloth, repudiating the position of your own church, and voting regularly for federal funding of abortion.

    DRINAN: I have not repudiated the position of my own church. I’ve said thousands of times that abortion is immoral in my judgment and coming out of my tradition, but that this is oversimplified piety, as if everything that the churches hold must in fact be put into American law. . . . A lot of Catholics in the Congress and throughout the country feel that the state should not deny Medicaid funds to people who are entitled to an abortion under the law. . . .

    FALWELL: Your church believes that abortion is murder. . . . Why is it that you don’t support that, and why is [it] that you are constantly voting to pay for something that your church calls immoral? . . .

    DRINAN: I think that there’s a constitutional right granted by the highest tribunal of the nation, and that a member of Congress takes an oath to support that Constitution.

    FALWELL: Do you take the ruling of a Supreme Court above the authority of the Holy Father? . . . The question is, do you believe that the Supreme Court has more authority than your Holy Father does on this issue?

    DRINAN: That’s not the question. The Supreme Court has authority in a field, and . . . we should sustain the Constitution as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, until or unless it’s reversed.”

    Drinan was an unfailing shill for the pro-abort cause after the Pope ordered him not to run again in 1980. Complete contempt is a weak description for my feelings toward Drinan and his fellow pro-abort priests.

    In regard to Ted Kennedy I think he was an easy convert to support for abortion on demand. Whatever his public statements regarding abortion, I have no doubt that his private view was probably: “darn convenient.”

  • Donald,
    Read the First Things link….all very bizarre and suggests where Pilosi may have gotten her ideas. I found a Drinan article at Theological Studies (see below) on the topic but it is still hard to find there his implicit “render to Caesar with gusto once Caesar has erred” idea. He cites John Courtney Murray S.J. to the effect that there are many immoral actions that the law does not prohibit …I suppose like eating habits that lead to diabetes and communal expense that some are warning of in our media lately. The devil tricked him in an area that I am not seeing unless it’s in the area in the article at TS where he sees significance (what kind?) in the one third of preborns that die by nature all along the spectrum from failed implantation to miscarriage…and similar observations. Well….God takes many people into the next life through heart attack and tornados….that doesn’t mean we should.

  • Years ago at the UN an Australian delegate remarked that it was time to call a spade a spade. In rebuttal, a Russian delegate remarked that calling a spade a spade was all very well for capitalist countries, “but in the Soviet Union we call a spade a shovel”.

  • Pingback: Catholic Phoenix
  • Great piece! Thank you for offering this message & reflection.

  • Peter Kreeft has the knack Bob of saying the truth out of season, and it is a trait I prize!

Steve Jobs: Thanks Mom For Not Aborting Me!

Sunday, November 27, AD 2011


A follow up to my post, which may be read here, regarding Steve Jobs, Adoption and  Abortion.  Pro-lifers have gotten some static for bringing up the fact that Steve Jobs could have ended up aborted if his mother had not chosen life for him.  Well, it appears that Steve Jobs was thankful that his mother did not choose to kill him through abortion.

“I wanted to meet [her] mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion,” he said. “She was 23 and she went through a lot to have me.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Steve Jobs: Thanks Mom For Not Aborting Me!

  • We are all Gods creatures of his image. Steve Jobs as well as many other people thank God that they were not aborted. If a person doesn’t want to have a baby they should at the very least let the baby live. If we think about are parents are suppose to care and love us not kill us. If you look back in history there was a lot of famous people that would of never lived if their parents aborted them.

  • “If a person doesn’t want to have a baby they should at the very least let the baby live.”

    Actually, if a person doesn’t want to have a baby, then that person must remain sexually abstinent. What are we? Wild baboons without sentience, given to the passing whims of the lust of the flesh that we cannot control our own bodies, and when we fornicate or commit adultery, we think we should be given a free pass for our lack of self-control?

    No sex outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. No adultery. No fornication. And while it doesn’t cause pregnancy, no homosexual behavior. God gave us brains and He expects us to use them.

Elections Have Consequences: Congress to Investigate Worse Than Murder, Inc.

Sunday, October 2, AD 2011

Congressman Cliff Stearns (R. Fl.) , Chairman of the investigation subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee gave Cecile Richards, President of Worse Than Murder, Inc, a/k/a Planned Parenthood, a very bad day recently when he sent her a letter asking for numerous documents.  Go here to read the letter.

This sets the stage for a full scale Congressional investigation of Worse Than Murder, Inc.  Fields of inquiry could include:

1.  The failure of Worse Than Murder, Inc to comply with laws which require reporting of possible sexual abuse of minors.

2.  Just what Worse Than Murder, Inc does with all the federal money it receives each year.

3.  The number of abortions conducted by Worse Than Murder, Inc.

4.  Subpoena of internal e-mails involving Worse Than Murder, Inc’s use of federal funds and non-compliance with laws regarding the reporting of the sexual abuse of minors.

5.   Have any federal funds been used by Worse Than Murder, Inc for political purposes?

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences: Congress to Investigate Worse Than Murder, Inc.