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Administration Covering Up Abortion Data *Updated* — First time in 40 yrs, CDC’s “Abortion Surveillance Report” will not be published.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