Tag Archives: roe v. wade

VIDEO: The horrifying culmination of abortive societies?

If society continues along the path of devaluing the child, treating children as property to acquire or dispose of at will, might we not expect in the future to accept the horrible imitation?

END ABORTION WITH YOUR VOTE

Rick Perry’s illegitimate abortion position

National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said the governor’s position on abortion couldn’t be any more in line with her organization’s tenets. “Gov. Perry has a wonderful pro-life record,” she said. Pic: Right To Life rally in Austin, Texas.

Not so fast, says Lisa Graas today on her blog…

Rick  Perry Believes the 10th Amendment Trumps the Right To Life; NRTC Yawn

It is troubling to see National Right to Life featuring an article on ostensibly “pro-life” Rick Perry without calling him out on his illegitimate abortion position.

Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure.

“You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston.  “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’”

Um…no, Governor Perry. The 10th Amendment does not cover ALL issues. The federal government has a duty to uphold our inalienable rights if the states fail to. See McDonald v. Chicago.

NRLC needs to grow a spine.

Read the rest of the story

Obama Administration Covering Up Abortion Data *Updated* — First time in 40 yrs, CDC’s “Abortion Surveillance Report” will not be published.

Let’s be clear: promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists … do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

-President Obama, March 9, 2009.

“The Obama Administration has apparently ordered that the only Federal government report on abortion statistics … be deep-sixed.

READ: Obama Administration Covering Up Abortion Data *Updated* | RedState.

HT/JEFF MILLER

END OF POST

AP Video Report: Abortionist Kermit Gosnell charged with the murder of 8

Murder by Numbers…  Abortionist collected millions in abortion fees over 30 years…

Abortionist brutally murdered ‘hundreds’ of living newborns: clinic worker

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, January 20, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A massive, photograph-laden Grand Jury Report released Wednesday has detailed the bone-chilling practices of a Philadelphia abortionist, who clinic workers testified had delivered “hundreds” of living, breathing newborn children before severing their spinal cords or slitting their necks to complete the abortions.

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell was arrested Wednesday for eight counts of murder.  One of the charges was for the botched-abortion death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, a Nepalese refugee. The other seven were for children who police had discovered, by examining their remains, had been born alive and then killed.

District Attorney R. Seth Williams released the 281-page report that was the basis for the murder charges against Gosnell and nine of his associates. Included in that report were photos of some of Gosnell’s victims.

In the report, the Grand Jury notes that several agencies and groups became aware of what has become known as Gosnell’s “shop of horrors,” but did nothing. They also provide extremely explicit descriptions of botched abortions, late-term abortions and infanticides rarely seen in court documents.

“Pennsylvania law requires physicians to provide customary care for living babies outside the womb. Gosnell chose instead to slit their necks and store their bodies in various household containers, as if they were trash,” stated the report.

The report provided detailed testimony from clinic staff who said that “killing large, late-term babies who had been observed breathing and moving was a regular occurrence” at the filthy clinic: one staffer said such events happened “hundreds” of times.

Another clinic worker, Tina Baldwin, told the jurors that Gosnell once joked about a baby that was writhing as he cut its neck: “that’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”

According to clinic worker Kareema Cross, Gosnell resorted to regularly killing babies after birth because he was not skilled enough to kill the baby in utero with a digoxin injection, a usual means of late-term abortion.

The report noted that one unlicensed worker at the clinic attempted to justify Gosnell’s practice of cutting of the newborns’ spinal cords as a “partial-birth abortion.” The Grand Jury concluded that the two procedures were different, however, because sucking the brains out of the baby’s head in a partial-birth abortion occurred while the head was still inside the mother, and thus served to make delivery of the evacuated head easier, whereas Gosnell’s victims were killed “when there was clearly no need or medical reason to collapse the skull.”

The day after the death of Karnamaya Mongar, Gosnell had applied for membership to the National Abortion Federations, but failed to meet its requirements. Even though an NAF staff person spent several days in Gosnell’s abortion mill noting numerous violations, they failed to report him to the proper authorities, notes the document.

“Despite his various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused,” states the report. “Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application.  She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen.”

While saying that “bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news,” the jurors said, “We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion.”

The group also had a stern rebuke for regulatory organizations who looked the other way, giving their stamp of approval to his criminal practices.

The pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue called for massive reforms in the way abortionists and abortion clinics are handled by regulatory agencies nationwide. Kermit Gosnell’s shop of horrors, they said, is certainly not the only abortion mill of this kind in operation in America.

“Operation Rescue calls for immediate emergency inspections of every abortion clinic in the nation. We have often said that if this were to ever happen, no abortion clinic would remain in operation because we have yet to discover one that adheres to all the laws that apply to them,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

“As the 38th memorial of Roe v. Wade approaches, it is time for Americans to consider the horrors of abortion and demand that government abolish this barbaric practice forever.”

Prop 8: Federal Decision Pending on Future of Marriage

Federal Case to Overturn Prop 8 Goes to Judge

 

This from Bill May of Catholics for the Common Good Institute followed by story:

On Wednesday, I attended the closing arguments on the federal case to overturn Prop 8. You cannot get a good idea of what really went on from media coverage, so I have provided a summary and analysis on the website at http://www.ccgaction.org/index.php?q=marriage/CA/prop8trialclosingarg.

Charles Cooper did a great job of getting key points into the record that should make it very difficult for the Judge to do anything but uphold Prop 8. Having said that, the decision could go either way. If Prop 8 is overturned, it will be immediately appealed.

I have provided clarity on the most compelling arguments, which should be helpful to you in explaining what happened to friends and family members.

As you will see, a bad discussion on this case could completely remove the definition of marriage from the realm of political debate, just as Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to abortion. This case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court and could affect the entire nation.

As I noted at the end of the article, conversations between attorneys and the judge highlighted the great amount of confusion there is about what marriage is, and its relationship to children and parenting.

The debate is complicated by many factors, among which are the promotion of alternative families in which depriving children of mothers or fathers is considered normal, redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood as roles rather than biological realities, artificial means of procreation through IVF, and children unwittingly being reduced to objects for adult fulfillment rather than gifts of equal dignity. The fight to protect and promote marriage between a man and a woman cannot be divorced from these factors.

This continues to highlight the need for training large numbers of people in the new and very effective techniques that have been developed in conjunction with the Stand with Children strategy to promote the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society.

***********************************************************

SAN FRANCISCO, June 16, 2010 – The message delivered to Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker by Prop 8 proponents during the closing arguments at the trial to redefine marriage in San Francisco was clear. The voters have overwhelming authority and rational reasons for defining marriage between a man and a woman. The voters’ decision to pass Prop 8 cannot be overturned unless the plaintiffs negate every single claim of state interest for promoting the uniquely pervasive institution that channels procreative activity into a stable relationship.

Judge Walker noticeably stiffened in his chair as Charles Cooper, lead counsel for the defense, further stated that even if he concludes that every claim made by the plaintiffs is true, he could still not rule against Prop 8 unless he found that all of the rational reasons for protecting marriage were false. “It is a judicial tsunami they are asking you to sail into.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that people who voted for Prop 8 could only have done so “through irrational or dark motive, some animus, some kind of bigotry.” After citing myriad U.S. Supreme Court cases going back to the late 1800’s that affirmed the public interest in marriage, Cooper responded by telling the judge that the plaintiffs’ charge was “a slur on 7 million Californians It’s a slur on 70 of 108 judges who have upheld as constitutional and rational the decision of voters and legislatures to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”

Over the course of his closing argument, Cooper was masterful at weaving in pertinent legal authorities that are not only important for this judge’s deliberations, but are most critical to have in the record for appeals likely leading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Roe v Wade of Marriage?

At the end of his argument, Cooper took the opportunity to urge the judge to let the debate on marriage continue by upholding Prop 8. Cooper’s words were more significant than one might imagine, because if Prop 8 had failed, — or if the judge decides to overturn it and his decision is upheld –, it would be legally discriminatory to even argue that marriage between a man and a woman has a higher value to society than same-sex relationships.

As the plaintiff’s counsel rose to rebut Cooper’s argument, Judge Walker seemed to turn pensive and asked about detrimental consequences of “constitutionalizing” social change and taking it out of the “political realm,” effectively ending debate. He obscurely referred to the example of the Roe v. Wade case, without mentioning it by name, and the resulting polarization. Roe v. Wade overturned every restriction on abortion across the country and ignited shock waves that are still reverberating 37 years later. Walker suggested that overturning Prop 8 could lead to the same kind of situation that has “plagued our politics for 30 years” and could be dangerous for the future of the same-sex “marriage” movement.

Plaintiffs argued that because of discrimination against homosexuals the must be treated as a protected class requiring a stricter standard be used since the plaintiffs contention is that Prop 8 discriminates against this class of people. Cooper pointed out that for homosexuality to be a “suspect class” under the equal protection clause of the constitution, homosexuality must be immutable.

Evidence provided during the trial by one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses is that about two-thirds of lesbians change their sexual orientation at least once over the course of their lives – contradicting the immutability claim. The judge responded that discrimination based on religion is protected and religious beliefs can change, but Cooper reminded him that protection of religious beliefs is covered by the first amendment guaranteeing religious liberty creating the basis for equal protection clause.

The performance of former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olsen, the attorney who presented the closing arguments for the plaintiffs was somewhat surprising for someone who has argued a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His arguments seemed very general and to be more directed toward repeating campaign-style rhetoric than legal argument. This plays well with gay “rights” communities and with the media, who enthusiastically applauded when the plaintiffs’ legal team was introduced at a closed press conference following the hearing.

Olsen argued that procreation has never been a condition for marriage and therefore it cannot be about procreation. There is much procreation taking place outside of marriage as less people are getting married and more people are cohabitating. Marriage has changed over the last 30 years, he claimed, and is breaking down on its own attempting to demonstrate that it could not be adversely effected by permitting gays and lesbians to marry. If the state’s interest were to channel people who procreate into marriage, there would be no no-fault divorce laws that channel people out of marriage. New York is the only state without no-fault divorce and it is expected to adopt it soon.

Olsen tried to equate restrictions on same-sex “marriage” to attacks on the dignity of blacks in past marriage laws, and a contention contended that withdrawing same-sex “marriage” rights contributes to stigmatizing gays. He referred to the fact that 18,000 same sex couples married during the period from May 2008, when the California Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the voters in 2000, to the date of passage of Prop 8 that November.

For some reason, Olsen felt it important to draw attention to testimony by Dr. Nancy Cott of Harvard about how slaves were denied marriage and somehow linking this with bans on interracial marriage. Olsen continued to misrepresent court decisions striking down interracial marriage barriers as a redefinition of marriage to bar racial discrimination against adults in loving relationships. Cooper, on the other hand, pointed out that the right to marry in those cases assumed marriage between men and woman as the justices pointed out was “fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.” He noted that these restrictions “grew out of . . . white supremacist theory,” meaning these laws were about eugenics – racial purity and the procreative nature of relationships between men and women.

Olsen tried to argue that precedent for overturning Prop 8 could be found in the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned a law criminalizing private sexual behavior. He argued that marriage is also a private behavior. Cooper countered that Lawrence focused on a criminal statute, not a statutory privilege created by the state. Further, Cooper cited Crawford v Board of Education, a 1982 California case in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of voters to pass an initiative to reduce state requirements for school busing to the federal standards. The national standard for marriage established in the federal law (DOMA), and by 40 states that have adopted marriage protection amendments or legislation, is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Olson also pointed to Romer v. Evans, a Colorado case on an initiative amending the state constitution to ban all legislation at any level of government that would provide any protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court found that there was no rational reason to adopt something so broad and overturned it on that basis. Cooper pointed out that is not the case in California. Prop 8 is very narrow and there are clear reasons for retaining the traditional definition of marriage, which the plaintiffs have not refuted.

Cooper further cited a New York Court of Appeals case upholding marriage and the Lofton v Florida upholding a ban on gay adoptions by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Both courts cited common sense alone as being sufficient as rational reasons for adopting the laws. No one knows how long it will take Judge Walker to arrive at a decision. It could be a couple of weeks or it could be several months. There is no deadline.

As a closing note, conversations between attorneys and the judge highlighted the great amount of confusion there is about what marriage is, and its relationship to children and parenting.

The debate is complicated by many factors, among which are the promotion of alternative families in which deprived of mothers or fathers is considered normal, redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood as roles rather than biological realities, artificial means of procreation through IVF, and children unwittingly being reduced to objects for adult fulfillment rather than gifts of equal dignity. The fight to protect and promote marriage between a man and a woman cannot be divorced from these factors.

This continues to highlight the need for training large numbers of people in the new and very effective techniques that have been developed in conjunction with the Stand with Children strategy to promote the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society.

  

Please support this effort with a tax-deductible donation to Catholics for the Common Good Institute.

    Or simply mail a check to:
    Catholics for the Common Good Institute
    P.O. Box 320038
    San Francisco, CA 94132

Our Lady of Guadalupe our patroness and guide, pray for us.

For the Common Good,

Bill May
Chairman, Catholics for the Common Good
415 651 4171
415 738 0421 (Fax)

Catholic teaching incompatible with ObamaCare

Catholic Doctors, More Bishops Insist: Catholic Teaching Incompatible with ObamaCare

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, DC, March 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Several more U.S. Catholic bishops, as well as a national association of Catholic medical doctors, have stepped up to rescue the Catholic name from organizations claiming the abortion-laden Senate health care bill is compatible with Church teaching.

The Catholic Medical Association (CMA), a national association of Catholic physicians, has thrown their weight behind the statement of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, who said that groups supporting the Senate bill “have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation’s Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill.”

“Should this political ploy prove successful in persuading some legislators to vote for this flawed bill, these individuals and groups will have done a grave disservice to human dignity and to the common good of this nation,” wrote CMA.

“Given this evidence above, it is difficult to understand how some Catholics could lobby in favor of such legislation,” stated the group. “Given the significance of the issues at stake, and the consistent, compelling policy guidance provided by the U.S. bishops on these matters, publicly opposing and/or undermining the U.S. bishops at this time is imprudent and uncharitable.”

The U.S. Catholic bishops have found themselves at the center of a media frenzy this week, as they have stepped up efforts to fend off dissident Catholic groups endorsing a bill that has been unequivocally condemned by leading pro-life analysts as the worst expansion of abortion in America since Roe v. Wade.  The White House has openly admitted that the support of such groups has been “very important” in swaying crucial votes in favor of the bill as the clock ticks down to a final vote scheduled for Sunday.

In a significant display of episcopal muscle, at present count, at least 30 U.S. bishops have specifically condemned the Senate health care bill since its final form was published. Expressing solidarity with the USCCB, many issued letters to lawmakers, and statements to their flock clarifying the position of the Church.

“Make no mistake,” wrote Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo. “If the House passes the Senate version of health care reform, it will be a dark day in the history of the United States of America.”

“We’re not the obstructionists here, since all we’re insisting upon is that the understanding that tax money not pay for abortions, in place since 1975, remains,” emphasized New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who explained his opposition to the Senate health care bill on his website. “It is instead those who have radically altered the debate to open a loophole to eliminate the Hyde Amendment who are risking the very fate of this legislation.”

So far, one prelate has come out in favor of the bill: retired Bishop John E. McCarthy of Austin, Tex., told the Associated Press Wednesday that legislators should not kill the legislation “at this crucial moment,” claiming that the bill’s flaws on life issues could be fixed later.

Meanwhile, more Catholic organizations that are aggressively pushing for the bill despite the abortion expansion continue to crawl out of the woodwork, often emphatically claiming over and against the USCCB, the National Right to Life Committee, and countless top pro-life analysts that the bill in fact does not contain abortion funding.

The National Catholic Reporter wrote in an editorial Thursday that “Congress, and its Catholics, should say yes to health care reform.” “The current legislation is not ‘pro-abortion,’ and there is no, repeat no, federal funding of abortion in the bill,” NCR stated.

The left-leaning lobby group Catholics United has sparked an angry response from some bishops for its active promotion of the pro-abortion bill.

The Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, WV ripped Catholics United – which he noted was “in no way affiliated” with the Catholic Church – for having started “secular media campaigns that confuse Catholics with misleading images and messages that are not consistent with the position taught by the Bishops of the United States, including Bishop Michael Bransfield.”

“It is the clear and unchanged position of Bishop Bransfield and the USCCB that unless these flaws are addressed in the legislation, the Senate bill should not be passed in the House,” stated the diocese on its website.

In Michigan, Catholic bishops also slammed Catholics United for taking out advertisements attacking Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) for his pro-life stand against the health care bill.

“In no way does Catholics United represent the public policy positions of the Catholic Church,” stated the Michigan Catholic Conference, which includes the state’s seven bishops on its board. “In fact, the ad campaign and its accompanying news release grossly misrepresents the official position of the Catholic Church on health care reform, and unfairly and erroneously attacks Congressman Bart Stupak for his efforts to prohibit tax-payer funded abortions.”

The Village Liar — Deliverance From Evil (Part 4)

“Some things cannot be compromised. The difference between good and evil is one.”

67d3df9eb2e1fcaa_landing

Deliverance From Evil (Part 4)

by

Vic Biorseth

The many disguises of evil.

From John 8:44:

“You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

213316660YCDPFI_fsThe two names our Lord gave to Satan are murderer and liar. The two names go together. Untruth leads to death, and leads others to death, in more ways than one.

Our sole problem in contemporary America involves truth vs. untruth.

Of course, the biggest, most dangerous and most successful (in America) opposition to truth factor involves the varying levels of acceptance of Marxist ideology. And there are lots of levels. My contention is that there is nothing in Marxism that is of any value to man. But many Americans consider some part of Marxist theory to be of some value. Only one of these positions can be correct.

DachauBabies3Beginning, I think, some time in the thirties, when the world began to be aware of the government brutalities imposed on people in Russia and in Germany, American Leftists – both of the German and Russian variants – began to refer to themselves as moderates, to disassociate themselves and their movements from Marxism. At some point, the new word for Communist became Moderate. The term Leftist has always applied to Marxists. For a number of decades, the term Liberal was favored.

Today, few American Marxists refer to themselves as Marxists. Even Leftist is too strong for most of them. Even the softer Liberal is too strong for some of them. Moderate seems about right for most of them; but note well that they all remain Marxist.

We are mesmerized into thinking that one can be a little bit Liberal, or take some of Marx’s theory to heart, and still be a good Constitutional American. This is false. It is untrue. There is nothing at all in Marxism that is in any way compatible with Constitutional America. Seeking any sort of compromise position between Marxist theory and Constitutional American can only result in a weakened Constitutional America.

2043458907_a919d624f2Some things cannot be compromised. The difference between good and evil is one. Government by Marxism, in any variant or form whatsoever, and government by the American Constitution is another. They are incompatible, to the point of being mutually exclusive. You can either have free markets and a liberated citizenry, or you can have some variant of Socialism, one or the other. You cannot have both.

I therefore regard Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Leftism, Moderate-ism and Marxism to all be one and the same thing. For simplification, I refer to them all as Marxism, which is what they all are.

Again, our problem in contemporary America involves truth vs. untruth.

Marxist Driven Public Education.

213316660YCDPFI_fsSo where is all the untruth coming from? Little American children are not learning how to put condoms on cucumbers, and the mechanics of safe fornication, protected sodomy and responsible promiscuity in home schools, private schools, parochial schools, in their homes or in their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. Little American children are being taught these things, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

FRANCE-RELIGION-POPE-CONDOMHillary has taught us that it takes a village to raise a child. See?

Little American girls are not smuggled in and out of abortion mills without their parent’s knowledge from any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, from their homes or from their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

Judao-Christian religion, scripture, tradition, morality, religious expression, religious exercise and so forth are not strictly and, you might say, religiously censored, prohibited and even opposed in teaching in any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, in their homes or in any Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system.

Pro-Marxist and anti-Capitalist bias is not taught American children in any home schools, private schools, parochial schools, from their homes or from their Churches, Temples or Synagogues. That sort of thing is done, solely and exclusively, in the Marxist driven public school system. That is where American history is taught in the most negative light possible, and Socialism is shown in the most positive light possible.

prop8_13_5-26-09Our so-called public schools are the only places in America where children are exposed to the false rantings of the Femi-Nazi movement, the Homo-Nazi movement and the Eco-Nazi movement. Well, actually, they might see quite a bit of that on TV today, too, and in the public media. Black children are taught to feel victimized, and white children are taught to feel perpetually guilty, in a false and biased racist America slant of American history.

All of this captive audience Marxist indoctrination happens only in American public schools.

Marxist Driven College Education.

213316660YCDPFI_fsThe ‘60s and ‘70s revolutionary, anti-war, hippy-freak, Woodstock generation, which was the first of several truly anti-American American generations, is now in charge of the American college campus. Yesterday’s hippy is today’s dean. They who led and participated in the sit-ins, love-ins, pot parties, orgies, bra burnings, draft card burnings, campus riots, ROTC building burnings, bombings and street-warfare are today’s Ivey League professors and talk-show celebrities.

scacWhatever else may be learned in the typical American university today, American and world history will be dripping with anti-American bias, and Socialism will be taught in the most positive light possible.

On the American college campus, flat out Communist disinformation has gone main-stream. It is the norm.

Even those graduates who are not infected with Marxism are often infected with what the late Jeane Kirkpatrick referred to as the Blame America First Syndrome in which America is always somehow seen to be the cause of whatever is bad in the world. The fact that we consume more than anyone else is grossly over-emphasized; the fact that we produce more than anyone else is forgotten. As is the fact that we export more than anyone else. If we have more than someone else, why, somehow that is unfair, and we owe it to someone else. When Marxism isn’t sinister, it is just silly, but always at the expense of America.

Marxist Driven Mainstream Media.

213316660YCDPFI_fsThese days I’m working as a local delivery driver, and I get to listen to talk radio quite a bit out on the road. I love to listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Both of them seem to seek the truth and find it, quite regularly, and they always seem to hit the nail on the head, on whatever controversial topic they are discussing. Rush gets the preferred nod, as the most entertaining of the two, because of his wit. He is funny; he is always good for at least one good belly laugh every day, and sometimes he keeps me laughing through most of his show. This is good for me, these days, with who is running both houses of Congress and the White House, because sometimes I think if I didn’t laugh, I just might cry.

But both Sean and Rush have got something wrong, and it is their view of the mainstream media, which I have labeled the SLIMC. They feel that mainstream media journalists have missed the boat, are making themselves irrelevant, have failed in their duty, are going to be sorry, and so forth. But that is wrong. They know exactly what they are doing.

WALTER-CRONKITEThe SLIMC is every bit as Marxist as Obama is. I’ve been saying that ever since the Vietnam War. If any American profession today is more anti-American, on average, than the American teaching profession, it is American journalism, by an order of magnitude.

As described in several other pages on this site, Walter Cronkite may be the worst example of them all. Cronkite could have been and should have been investigated, charged, tried, convicted and executed for treason. The same could be said of John (did you know he served in Vietnam) Kerry, Hannoi-Jane Fonda and others, but Cronkite takes the highest “honor” because he was so trusted, and so believed, by so many. Cronkite, more than anyone else, is responsible for producing the first of several anti-American American generations. Cronkite, more than anyone else, as we said in the Vietnam War page, is responsible for the loss of the Vietnam War itself.

Other American journalists idolize Cronkite; he is the one they most seek to emulate; he is their hero. They hope one day, following his lead, to somehow destroy Capitalism, and Constitutional America along with it.

END OF POST/DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL by VIC BIORSETH — PART 4 OF 5 — [1 2 3 4 5]

(CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE)

Ed. Note: http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Culture, Representative Government, American idealism and Conservative values. It promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on ethos, critical thinking and reason.

The Village Liar — Deliverance From Evil (Part 3)

“And upon this flimsy, foundationless, thin-air legal precedent, another Constitutional right was interpreted into being: the Constitutional Right to abort someone.”

640_v_0075

Deliverance From Evil (Part 3)

by

Vic Biorseth

Why Civil Law must be Representative Law and Must reflect the Common Ethos of the people.

Judao-Christian driven ethos, or, Marxist driven secularism?

213316660YCDPFI_fsAs we said above, Founders such as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc. have all warned us that the proper functioning of our American Republic depends upon a basically moral citizenry. To summarize Tocqueville, the greatness of our nation is entirely dependent upon the goodness of her people.

So how are we to judge “goodness?”

In Western Civilization, we judge goodness by adherence to the immutable Word of God, and by how well we obey His laws and precepts. The Marxists among us, who today represent a clear majority in our sitting federal government, would prefer that we remove God entirely from the discussion. Political play-acting aside, they do not believe in God, and they would prefer that we not believe in Him either. They would have us turn to The World for guidance, and to look to worldly government to provide our worldly utopia, and to not think about any afterlife, because this life is all there is. So do your part for worldly utopia while you’re here.

If we listen to them, we should turn our lonely, helpless eyes to scientism and naturalism, recognize the need for a wise and benign ruler, see the beauty of the earth and nature, and recognize the scientistic fact that HBAACOTE. Once we’ve finally internalized that little bit of “wisdom” we will be ready to join in one or more of the Leftist programs moving us all toward worldly utopia.

LoveInArcadiaWe have the Marxist driven Femi-Nazi movement; the Marxist driven Homo-Nazi movement, and the Marxist driven Eco-Nazi movement, among others. Pick your favorite. We have been “saved” by the great sexual revolution that opened our unsophisticated eyes to the wonders of fun for the sake of fun. We have been “educated” in the “truth” of our population problem and thus the need for artificial contraception methods including abortion. Because we still need to have fun, for fun is a requirement for a good quality-of-life. And always remember, a good quality-of-life eventually may be a requirement for continuation of life when you get older. That explains the ever growing need for ongoing development of male enhancement drugs and morning-after pills.

Any devout Jew and any practicing Christian, of whatever denomination, should see all of this as nothing but absolute crap. It is utter nonsense. Sophisticated? Anyone who pushes or embraces secularism and would use it to displace our Judao-Christian Ethos has got to be so stupid as to make us wonder how they still manage to live. Any brain that small must raise questions regarding the function and purpose for it’s surrounding skull.

But, you see, once you are properly secularized – once you put your faith and morals aside – anything and everything becomes acceptable, and everything that involves any sort of worldly pleasure works its way to the forefront in your attention.

trioToday, grown and educated men and women, keeping a straight face, will argue with you about how homosexuality is an involuntary orientation rather than a chosen lifestyle, with nothing whatsoever to back up their nonsensical argument. No genetic proof, no evidence of any kind, just idiotic, head-bobbing general consensus thinking. Ignoring the huge and continuing history of those “cured” and turned to heterosexuality, and the huge and continuing history of those “converted” or seduced into homosexuality, and the huge and continuing history of those who are episodically heterosexual and then homosexual. To say that someone is somehow born homosexual is pretty much equivalent to saying someone is somehow born to commit serial murder, or to abuse children, or to rob banks, or to do anything at all. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

They will insist that someone who decided to have his (hers/its) sexual genitalia surgically reversed, somehow, by that incredibly stupid decision, needs to enjoy more legal rights than the rest of us, and special protections under the law. We actually have gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual special rights coded into civil law in some American jurisdictions, because, after all, they have no choice in the matter. Freud and Jung and Kinsey said so.

Bull.

213316660YCDPFI_fsI know many of you are probably tired of my harping on Darwin, Freud and Marx, but that’s who started it all, and theirs are the foundational “truths” that have been socially accepted in spite of the fact that they are all falsehoods. While these universally accepted “false truths” are not the only ones or even the earliest ones, they are the biggest ones, and the ones most responsible for turning American faces away from God, and for the resulting decline of Constitutional America.

So what does that term even mean?

Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it describes the organization of the United States, and it alone provides, describes, empowers and limits the legal authority of the three co-equal branches of our federal government to govern here. If it is not in the Constitution, then the government may not do it. Very simple. We are a nation of laws and not just of men, even elected men. Elected or appointed government officers and officials are not free to do whatever they damn well please; they are constrained by the limitations of the United States Constitution.

American Marxists like to use the so-called Elastic Clause in Article I Section 8, which says

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

because they claim, falsely, that the term “general welfare” is open to such broad interpretation that Congress may levy any tax for virtually any purpose whatever, so long as it may be claimed to provide for the general welfare of the people. Note that the quote above finished with a semi-colon, indicating that the statement was not yet complete. Go to the actual Article I Section 8 and you will find a long list of the specific things to be included in the “pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;” If it isn’t in that list, Congress is not authorized to do it. Period. Taxing for anything not specifically in the list is unconstitutional. The list presents the very specific details of exactly how our government may pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare.

The only other place in the Constitution that the term general welfare may be found is in the Preamble, which serves as an introduction to the Constitution, and is not Constitutional Law.

Our Founding Fathers clearly intended to limit the reach of government, and government restriction and limitation is clearly the intent of our Constitution as written. Today’s American Marxists, with Obama in the lead, intend to grow the government and expand it’s governing power far, far beyond the legal constraints of our Constitution. They’ve already done it. They ignore it, and they violate it.

But they are not the first; the ground has been prepared by others.

Why is the Court driving the American bus?

And how long must we endure the domination of all legislative and executive actions by the court? It is easy to see what Marxist driven Supreme Court and lower court bench-loading has done to us as a people.

213316660YCDPFI_fsWe have the wild-assed Chief Justice Black gross miss-interpretation of a private letter by Jefferson as somehow pertaining to the intent of the religion clause of the First Amendment, which is just nuts. This Black Court establishment of new law ruled that no state, nor the federal government “can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” He further ruled that “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religions organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State””.

He made all that up out of thin air. Jefferson, and others among the founders, actually did all of the very things Black said they could not legally do. He lied about Jefferson’s wall, and about Jefferson’s intent, and about the intent of the framers. And a majority backed him up, Congress and the Executive branches did nothing, and we had ourselves a “Constitutional Principle” that to this day may not be found anywhere in the Constitution. You can read the disgusting details in the Refuting Separation of Church and State argument.

1pm-3We have the wild-assed Justice Douglas penumbras formed by emanations so-called precedent that allowed a new Constitutional Right to be interpreted into being, on the whim of an evil man supported by a majority of justices. A Constitutional Right, mind you, that may not be found in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. And upon this flimsy, foundationless, thin-air legal precedent, another Constitutional right was interpreted into being: the Constitutional Right to abort someone. Again, another “Constitutional Right” not to be found in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. Worldly men made it all up out of thin air.

These court decisions (Roe v Wade; Doe v Bolton) overturned existing, legislated, representative law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and made new law, at the national level, overriding all existing state laws. It was un-legislated, un-representative, un-constitutional new law. And Congress just sat there like a bunch of dumb-asses and did nothing. Legislation was supposed to be their job, but they weren’t smart enough to know that. Or, perhaps, they were evil enough to want this to happen. You can go to the Abortion In America page to read the disgusting details.

All of this is a matter of undeniable historical fact. We are supposed to be – or, rather, we were intended by the Founders to be – a nation of laws and not just of men. What this trend is turning us into is a nation of popular whim, fad and fancy, saying to hell with any fixed set of rules. To hell with fixed notions of right and wrong. To hell with the Constitution.

213316660YCDPFI_fsYou don’t have to be an attorney to know that these actions were clearly unconstitutional. All you need to be able to do is read.

END OF POST/DELIVERANCE FROM EVIL by VIC BIORSETH — PART 3 OF 5 — [1 2 3 4 5]

(CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE)

Ed. Note: http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Provides a focus-point for Orthodox Roman Catholicism, Judeo-Christian morality, Western Culture, Representative Government, American idealism and Conservative values. It promotes faith, family, tradition and property. Emphasis is on ethos, critical thinking and reason.

When Satan Mocks the Death of Men

Filed under: Who hired the headliner band?

Imagine no religion, a brotherhood of man...
Imagine no religion, a brotherhood of man...

The so-called “Free Love” era, or more formally known, American Sexual Revolution during the sixties is widely known to have undermined the Judeo-Christian ethos of our country, and thus, those laws created for the protection and welfare of spiritual individuals within our society. Today, authentic human love and freedom, that God-centered love which values our shared humanity from conception to nature death (and all points in-between) is under legal attack by the same carnal generation and its surviving offspring. Combine this with the dangerous soul-sucking goals inherent to Marxist-Atheism and its false promise of creating some man-made nirvana on earth swirling about college campuses at the time (and still today) and you have some faint idea of why those weird erectile dysfunction and male enhancement drug commercials seem to permeate television – and who there directed at: my generation…

Of course, as the commercials warn, these drugs have a litany of bizarre and potentially embarrassing side effects, but so does the undermining of laws and general rejection of sexual mores have consequences as well. Take a moment, and survey your own family—consider how uncommitted impersonal fornication, adultery, broken marriages and relationships, sexual abuse, diseases, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide, single parent households, and general break down of family life has occurred within your own life and the lives of those around you, and you’ll understand what I mean. The sexual revolution has led to a great number of children mourning deeply over the destruction and loss of their families. And worse: a great number of unwanted children have been lost and destroyed through abortion… It’s a long forgotten eternal truth, but nonetheless, still true today: the wages of sin is death. In this case, the death of families and the innocent unborn among us.

As a young man raised-up in the era of “free love”, I too was searching for love. After all, who doesn’t require love? What was missing, of course, was authentic love, and I myself paid the price in many ways for my own behavior as well. Looking back, I should have noted well my first experience at a Southern California “Love-in” in the late sixties. Walking into the park that day where love was supposedly the motif, I noticed two biker chicks in a fistfight on the grass surrounded by their male cohorts whose leather jackets emblazed the words “Devil’s Henchmen”

It makes more sense now…

While not “sinful”, in and of itself, music played a large part in this libertine era, and still does. You might have heard that art imitates life, and life imitates art. And sometimes the underlying Evil responsible for inspiring the loss of the sense of sin that has led to the destruction of our families and children (Satan) relishes in mocking the death of men within ordinary events–even musical events–such as the following little tidbit reveals.

Keep in mind that due to the reality of the presence of evil underlying the abortion industry there are generations of children no longer among us…

It’s hard for one to imagine the reality of anyone waking up on the morning of the Thirty-Sixth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and of their own volition saying to their selves, “Hey, I want to go out tonight and celebrate my right to abort children! It just doesn’t happen. That’s why Planned Parenthood and their local affiliates spend the funds to coordinate and publicize such events nationwide under the guise of “reproductive freedom” as opposed to what such gatherings truly are: Planned Parenthood’s self sponsored public promotion of its own lucrative product: death. Such “events” are true modern day testimonies to the “wages paid” by the sexual revolution in America: The glorification of human sacrifice.

Locally, this occurred last January at Ashland’s Standing Stone Brewery when pro-abort folks gathered to celebrate 36 years of reproductive sexual freedom.  How could anyone miss the macabre irony of whoever was responsible for choosing the headliner that evening, the Beatles cover band: The Nowhere Men. Imagine the sick press release for such an event:

–PLANNED PARENTHOOD PRESENTS THE NOWHEREMEN–

That would be nearly 50 million nowhere children, thanks in large part to Planned Parenthood in America…

Today is the 40th anniversary of John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s infamous “Bed-In Protest for peace” and art exhibition in 1969. Michael Archer explores the question here: “What has John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s bed-in taught us?” Here’s my borrowed answer from another music icon of the “free love” generation, Bob Dylan:

“Freedom, just around the corner from you, but with truth so far off what good would it do?”

Indeed.

Here’s my ’40 years ago today’ tribute to my generation. Note that at the 1:59 mark of the video there’s a sign in the crowd which reads: “Jesus died for your sins, John Lennon…” Still, today, Jesus Christ gives men that peace the world cannot ever give, and he does so in the freedom of  his truth. May my family, friends, and generation rediscover the reality of God’s true love for men…

Suffering from the loss of a child due to a past abortion? Click here for help in finding forgiveness and healing…

‘Panty Waist Christians’ For Obama Target Evangelical/Catholic Vote: The ‘Matthew 25’ network by Stephanie Block

       During my conversion to Catholicism 11 years ago, I worked for a data protection company delivering information to various Silicon Valley tech companies. With plenty of time in-between stops, many days were spent listening to Christian radio. One of my favorite programs was J. Vernon McGee. Odd for a Catholic, I suppose, but nonetheless a true favorite Protestant evangelist of mine. Why? Put simply, because of his sincerity of faith and willingness to defend that faith. Mr. McGee wasn’t afraid to explain how the ‘cow ate the cabbage’ when it came to his faith and its saving doctrine. And that’s how it should be. Of course, his doctrine was not my own, and most assuredly his was not mine… And that’s how it should be too, until the Holy Spirit convinces otherwise–and He will. If there were one phrase in which to describe Mr. McGee’s fiery oratory when turning his attention towards Christians he believed were preaching another Gospel, or had strayed in some manner from authentic doctrine, it would have to be “Panty waist Christians”. A southern preacher’s expression I’m sure, and one I had not heard before. The first time, I nearly swerved my truck from the highway in uncontrollable laughter–“You go get’em Vernon” I remember saying to the radio… Yes, his style was all his own, but most importantly, his voice revealed a deep and sure love for Our Lord Jesus Christ.

       Since that time I have met and worked with a number of fine Protestant brothers and sisters. I have also marched with them in defense of the unborn child. I believe on this point, the defense of innocent children in the womb from abortion, J. Vernon and I would agree wholeheartedly. Everything about our faith comes from and leads to life…. I also believe Mr. McGee and I would agree that Our Lord has blessed His Church with a long history of despising abortion and defending against it, at least from the 1st Century on. In recent times Our Lord has again bonded His people, Catholics and Protestants alike, in defense of the little ones. However sad it is to note here, the election of 2008 offers a deep challenge to our shared bond in this work of justice and mercy on behalf of the unborn child and traditional family values. This post below is a heads up for all sincere Protestants and Catholics unafraid to defend the Christian faith, and a hat tip as well to Dr. J. Vernon McGee for his inspiration and example of both.

The Mathew 25′ Network by Stephanie Block

 The Matthew 25 network, devised by Mara Vanderslice, was created to bridge the ‘God-gap’ Democrats have with Republicans. Alinskyian in nature, the network brings together Christians of different denominations to support Obama’s campaign.

The words are all about feeding the hungry, freeing sex slaves, caring for AIDS orphans – the stuff, more or less, of Matthew 25, in which Jesus exhorts those who hope to inherit the kingdom to help, in very practical, material ways, their fellow men.

And these are the right words, used to craft a message to Christian voters in terms Christians find familiar and comforting. The purpose for using them, however, is to narrow the “God gap” between Republicans, who have a long-standing advantage among religious voters, and Democrats.

Mara Vanderslice
Mara Vanderslice

Whose bright idea was this? Any of a number of people have noticed and decried this “gap” but it’s only been in the last four years someone has developed an effective way to bridge it. That someone is Mara Vanderslice, who has formed the political action committee called the Matthew 25 Network to “coordinate grassroots mobilization in these Christian communities, develop credible religious surrogates in the media, respond to negative faith-based attacks, and communicate directly with undecided voters through paid advertising and direct mail.” [Background authorized and paid for by The Matthew 25 Network and published at:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/Matthew25Background.pdf%5D

Vanderslice is an evangelical Democrat. She interned with Jim Wallis’ left-wing Sojourners and its political offspring, Call to Renewal, was the director of religious outreach for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaign in 2004, and worked on numerous successful campaigns in 2006, including Senator Bob Casey (PA), Governor Ted Strickland (OH), Governor Jennifer Granholm (MI), Representative Heath Shuler, and Governor Kathleen Sebelius (KS).
The challenge for Vanderslice has been reaching out to religious voters. Democrat candidates needed “a new language to use in talking about faith and values, aimed in part at neutralizing hot-button issues.” Rather than demand “choice,” pro-abortion politicians were told to emphasize abortion “reduction,” making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” [Hanna Rosin, “Closing the God Gap”, Atlantic Monthly January/February 2007]

Instead, they were to “talk about serving others; promoting the common good; protecting the environment as God’s creation, and alleviating poverty.” [Rosin] When the issue of same-sex marriages arose, t hey were to change the subject to the financial pressures on marriage.
The tactic works. According to one report, candidates coached by Vanderslice did 10 percentage points or better than Democrats nationally. They’re getting elected.

The targets

Obviously, evangelicals are a major target of Vandersplice, her Matthew 25 Network PAC, and the various organizational efforts of her mentor, Rev. Jim Wallis. They aren’t the only ones, though. Catholics – 47 million (according to Time Magazine) of whom could vote in US elections – tend to be “conservative” about abortion and homosexuality but “liberal” about issues of governance and social welfare. How to tap into that potential, liberal lode?

The Matthew 25 Network has a good number of Catholic “endorsers” – Ron Cruz, former Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Office of Hispanic Affairs; Sharon Daly, former Vice-Pre sident of Catholic Charities; Delores Leckey, Senior Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center and Former Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth; Vince Miller of Georgetown University; David O’Brien of College of the Holy Cross; and Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, who serves on the board of Faith in Public Life and works for NETWORK, a Catholic social justice lobby.

A number of these people – Sr. Catherine, Ron Cruz, Sharon Daly, Vincent Miller, and David O’Brien – are on Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council. During a Matthew 25 Network conference call that included Sharon Daly, she discussed Catholic pro-life beliefs and added, in true Vandersplice form, that Obama supports abortion reduction measures and the need to address the circumstances that increase abortions.

Obama

Obama, trained by Alinskyian organizers, also understands the power of language and the need to use it persuasively. At one of Jim Wallis’ Call to Renewal conferences (June 2 8, 2006), Obama delivered the keynote address. He said, “….the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to ‘the judgments of the Lord.’ Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to ‘all of God’s children.’ Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

He said many other things but closed with the story of a pro-life doctor who had written to him, challenging his pro-abortion rhetoric. “So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade. So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website….”

An Alinskyian says what needs to be said to win. One pro-Obama blogger wrote, “We have to win. Period. If this means he has to say he disagrees with the Supreme Court on the death penalty and child rapists, that he agrees with the handgun decision, and that he has to bring religion into the campaign, than so be it. No only do we have to win, but we have to win by a big enough margin so they can’t steal the election. Again. There is no other option – if we lose this time we lose everything.”

Posts worth reading on this subject:

“Justice in Pieces – Faith in Public Life”

 “What the H*** Is Community Organizing

Stephanie Block is the editor of Los Pequenos newspaper and is a member of the Catholic Media Coalition.