Ninja majorette?

Found via Breitbart.com

QUARTZ HILL, Calif. (AP) - Don't mess with the marching band. That's what California authorities are saying after a 17-year-old girl used her marching band baton to beat back two would-be muggers.

Los Angeles County sheriff's Deputy Michael Rust says the Quartz Hill girl was walking to school April 24 when two men approached her from behind, tried to grab her coat and demanded money.

Instead, one got a punch in the nose and the other a kick to the groin. Rust says the girl then beat both of them with her band baton before she ran away.

The men had not been caught. But Rust says there's a clear message to take from the encounter:
"The moral to this story is don't mess with the marching band girls, or you just might get what you deserve. Final score: marching band 2, thugs 0."

The War Department was in her school's marching band, she always gets irate when I question why they'd give out varsity letters to band members. Back when I was in high school only jocks got them.

Maybe I should rethink my opinion on this.

Beauty or beast? Conservative or liberal?

So Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who spoke her beliefs concerning gay marriage and has been lambasted for them, is now joining The National Organization for Marriage to work against the gay agenda. Guess she figures that she might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

But since she came to prominence via a beauty contest, I'm reminded of a question being asked by Matthew Archbold at his blog here. I recommend going over and giving your two cents.

Was it on his resume?

Things must be strange up in Utah, as evidenced by this post.

Educate me, please...

So the "photo op" of Air Force One that scared the living snot out of folks in the Big Apple cost $328, 825. Our tax dollars at work folks.

Somebody make me smart here, why didn't they just avail themselves of 21st Century technology and Photoshop the bugger as needed?

No scaring the crap out of John Q. Public, no waste of jet fuel as the engines gulp gallons of it by the minute, no pollutants released, no extra maintenance for the aircraft, the list of savings just goes on and on.

What the hell am I missing? If a retired submariner turd chaser is smarter than the folks in Washington this country is in DEEP shit!

Thoughts on Sebelius becoming head of the H&HS.

So now B.O. has a new Health & Human Services Director in the person of Kathleen Sebelius, the Kansas governor who came under fire for her proabortion acts while heading up that state.

It looked like her nomination was stalling out until the onset of swine flu, then she got pushed through because the office needed to be filled asap.

And this is the administration that believes you should never waste a good crisis, we've already seen that in the passage of the economic stimulus package. Remember the crisis mode of thinking fueling the quick passage of that bill until it came to a screaming halt for half a week because.....

....our President was enjoying Valentine's weekend in Chicago with the lovely Michelle (some crisis!).

We're being pawned big time folks, something tells me the worst is yet to come.

We haven't seen a panic quite like this one since the last one.

Found this at The Washington Times via Lucianne.com. It pretty well echoes my thoughts.

PRUDEN: A pandemic of panic -- are we dead yet?
Wesley Pruden

We were all supposed to be in the graveyard by now, done in by AIDS, SARS, bird flu, poisoned peanut butter, Hong Kong flu, killer tomatoes, global warming and strangulation by kudzu. But here we are, proof that there really is life after death.

Now we learn that we might freeze before the pigs get us. (The chickens failed.) NASA scientists have observed that the solar wind is the weakest since we began keeping such records, that the magnetic axis of the sun is tilted to an unusual degree, and Ol' Sol is the quietest he has been in a century. A chill, say the solar scientists, may be on the way. (Or not.) Worse, says one of them, this could compel reappraisal of the science of global warning. Try as he might, poor old Al Gore just can't keep the cosmos in line.

But this week Ol' Sol has been put in the shade by a new panic du jour. The cable-TV networks and the Internet are bubbling with sunspots, even if the sun isn't. Sample these latest headlines from the Drudge Report: "Two flu cases confirmed in Scotland. Has globalization made us more catastrophe-prone? Swine flu sweeps the globe. Swine flu closes football stadiums. The world must work together against this threat."

We haven't seen a panic quite like this one since the last one. SARS was once thought to be the ultimate panic, though the longest running panic was the AIDS scare, when big media set out to convince us that "now we are all at risk." SARS was never a threat in the United States, and worth the P-word only in China and even there a risk confined mostly to people who sleep with their chickens. You can step in all manner of unpleasant things in a chicken house. AIDS continues to be a succession of personal tragedies, but it has lost its power to terrorize continents. Worse, it lost its media cachet. Besides, nobody at the New York Times or at CNN wants to credit George W. Bush with anything good, or even acknowledge how he has become a hero in Africa for the American campaign against AIDS in Africa that has saved millions of lives.

But here we go again. The World Health Organization is heroically feeding the hysteria with the warning on front pages across the globe and trumpeted by hundreds of television talking heads: "The World Health Organization has warned that the [swine flu] virus has the potential to become a pandemic." The words "flu" and "pandemic" are such powerful scare words that almost nobody notices the accompanying weasel words "may," "could," "might," "potentially" and "possibly" that would stand out in bright red and green neon to the skeptical eye of a wizened old city editor. Alas, most of the wizened old city editors really are in the graveyard, having succumbed more to world-weariness than to fashionable diseases. The director of the World Influenza Center in London says of the outbreak, such as it is so far: "It's difficult to look on the bright side."

No, it's actually not difficult. About 2,000 persons in Mexico are down with flu, and about 150 have died. That's a mortality rate of about 7 percent. Sad, even tragic, but not exactly the most lethal flu virus we've ever seen. There's no mortality rate in the United States because no one has died. Only a few, very few, cases have been reported, and nearly all are described as "mild." You have to give the medical bureaucrats and the media credit for chutzpah to think they can keep such thin soup on the panic menu.

There are no firm estimates or even hopeful guesses of how many Americans are likely to contract flu this spring, but fortunately the ratio of panic to reality is not governed by facts. In the early hours of counting, barely 50 cases had been reported in the United States, and only two in Britain - that's 2, not 2,000 or even 200. About 300,000 to 500,000 cases of flu are reported every year in the United States, where 10 percent to 20 percent of the population comes down with the sore throat, coughing and achy bones of flu. Of those, 30,000 to 40,000 die. What we have so far in the United States is a 50-case panic, caused by a remarkably mild variant of the flu.

The medical researchers say it might mutate. Or it might not. If it does, it might, possibly, maybe, potentially be the worst killer since the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. Or it might not. Researchers are working on the vaccine, and the media is working on the panic. We may not get a vaccine, but soon there won't be a dry pair of pants on six continents.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

Color me clueless...

I don't understand the concern about the swine flu. The sucker responds to medication, all the deaths so far have been in Third World countries where the medical care isn't quite up to speed with what we have. Reading the news reports you'd think we were in the middle of a resurgent Black Death Plague.

I don't get it. FWIW, neither does the War Department and she's an RN.

Another "oopsie" for Notre Dame...

South Bend, Ind., Apr 27, 2009 / 11:55 am (CNA).- Less than a month before Notre Dame’s Commencement, the former Vatican ambassador Mary Ann Glendon has written President Jenkins to refuse the university's Laetare Medal, rebuffing his claim that her acceptance speech would somehow “balance” the event. (The lady won't be pawned, good for her.)

Mary Ann Glendon, a pro-life feminist (!!) and Harvard professor, today released an open letter to Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins, in which she told Jenkins that she could not speak alongside President Obama at the May 17th Commencement exercises.

In her letter, Glendon related that she was initially “profoundly moved” at the news that she would receive Notre Dame’s coveted Laetare Medal. After hearing the news, she said she quickly began crafting an acceptance speech that she “hoped would be worthy of the occasion.”

In March, Glendon said that she received a phone call from Fr. Jenkins informing her that she would not be giving the commencement speech, but that instead President Obama would fill that role. Upon learning of the change of plans, Glendon said that a “task that once seemed so delightful” had now been “complicated by a number of factors.” (Wait until the MSM gets this, it'll be spun that she's jealous and thats what drives her rejection of the medal.)

The first factor Glendon mentioned was her work as a “longtime consultant” to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which caused her to become “dismayed” that Notre Dame “planned to award the president an honorary degree.” This action, she said, would “disregard” the U.S. Bishop’s “Catholic’s in Political Life” document. (So many people claimed that document was "vague" and had loopholes for supporters of B.O., evidently this lady doesn't think so.)

Glendon also rebuffed the idea that the teaching “seeks to control or interfere” with a Catholic institution's “freedom to invite and engaged in serious debate whomever it wishes.”

The former Vatican ambassador also took exception to Fr. Jenkin's “talking point” that awarding the Laetare Medal to her would “balance the event.” Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop John D’Arcy also criticized Jenkins’ “talking points” by calling them “wrong” and a “flawed justification.”

“A commencement,” Ms. Glendon wrote, “is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.” (Ouch! That'll leave a mark!)

She also worried that Notre Dame’s decision is having a “ripple effect” that is encouraging other Catholic institutions to ignore the U.S. Bishop’s teaching.

“It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony,” she concluded.

President Jenkins responded to the criticism by saying Notre Dame is “disappointed” with Glendon’s decision and that the university intends “to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient.”

Notre Dame said they will make the “announcement as soon as possible."

Go to Creative Minority Report, they've a contest going on who the recipient will be.

This ain't chump change.

The idiocy of Fr. Jenkins, with a few other brainfarts committed by various public figures (e.g., Pelosi & Biden), has mobilized the pewsitters of the Church as hasn't been seen for decades. Maybe they should be thanked.

DEARBORN, MI (April 27, 2009)—Organizers of ReplaceJenkins.com, an online effort urging alumni and donors to the University of Notre Dame to withhold donations, announced Monday that they have personally confirmed over $8.2 million in withheld donations as a part of their national outreach effort. (Bet there's more that are kind of "iffy" right now.)

The website ReplaceJenkins.com has received over 900 pledges from alumni and donors promising to withhold future donations. Several of the largest gifts include estate bequests to the University that have been removed from donors' wills. ReplaceJenkins.com organizers have personally confirmed a majority of the largest donations, and continue to verify the validity of millions of additional gifts.

ReplaceJenkins.com spokesperson David DiFranco (Class of '95) commented: "We knew many donors and alums were unhappy with the decision to honor a pro-abortion president, but we never expected this large of a response. We can hardly keep up, and this is only the beginning. We can only imagine what fundraisers at the University are experiencing, but understandably not reporting." (Why point out all that egg on your face, right?)

"The process of verifying the largest donors has been carefully conducted," DiFranco explained. "We dismissed the obvious bogus submissions, and are not counting a huge number of larger donations that we are still in the process of verifying. (Uh-huh) We are speaking directly with donors, and in several cases we have spoken with estate attorneys to confirm that Notre Dame has been stripped from a donor's will. We are going about this process with a critical eye in order that the numbers we report are accurate. For that reason, the $8.2 million we are reporting today is actually very conservative."

Alumni and financial supporters of the University of Notre Dame launched the online effort just over one week ago in an effort to withhold donations from Notre Dame, until Rev. John Jenkins, CSC is replaced. The coalition website—www.replacejenkins.com—urges supporters to withhold all contributions to the Notre Dame General Fund until President Jenkins is replaced with someone who is committed to the authentic identity of Notre Dame, grounded in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"As momentum continues to build, we are now certain that the financial penalty resulting from the decision to honor the most pro-abortion president in our nation's history, will be enormous. The fact that this effort is necessary is unfortunate. However, alumni and supporters of Notre Dame have little other recourse than to protest with their pocketbooks. (Where the most pain will be felt.) We will continue our efforts as long as it is necessary to bring about positive change at Notre Dame that will honor 'Our Lady's' University," said DiFranco.

We've the curse of living in interesting times.

I don't know squat about the financing of a rollaway hotdog stand, let alone a major university. But I'd bet Notre Dame relies more heavily on money coming in from sources other than alumni donations. 8.2 million might finance part of their football program.

Nevertheless, it's not what you find in the cookie jar at home. I'm thinking it'll have an impact.

Hate/Thought crime bill moves closer to reality...

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A divided House Judiciary Committee yesterday voted to send a federal "hate crimes" bill to the House, after free speech advocates failed to secure protection for pastors who might preach biblically-based injunctions against homosexual activity.

In a motion almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, (big surprise) the Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 to allow the hotly contested H.R. 1913, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, to go forward.

The measure would grant the federal government a new authority to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that is perceived to be "motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." (So much for states rights. Guess that whole idea is passe.)

Christian leaders are particularly concerned that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality. (Look for that perspective to be rendered extinct by the "I'm okay-you're okay" elements you can find in any denomination. Bottom line, those believing in a traditional form of Christianity will soon be considered guilty until proven innocent of that greatest of all crimes, "bigotry". Proving innocence will be as feasible as raising the level of the tide by pissing into the ocean.)

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable. (Check out whats going on in Canada since they've passed similar legislation.)

The danger posed by the "hate crime" legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007. Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have "induced" a later hate crime.

"Just passing the legislation is going to result in pastors saying, 'I'm not going to address this issue,'" the American Center for Law and Justice's Jay Sekulow told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

In a Christian Post column Tuesday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins issued a point-by-point explanation of the unprecedented dangers presented by the "hate crimes" bill.

Perkins points out that H.R. 1913 violates the 14th amendment, which provides equal protection under the law, "by protecting some victims more than others."

"Do we somehow care less about a victim who is violently assaulted because of a robbery or personal dispute than we do about a victim who is assaulted because they belong in a federally protected category?" Perkins asked.

Also, says Perkins, the bill essentially "punishes thoughts and not just actions."

"Advocates of the bill deny this because it only authorizes prosecution of someone who 'willfully causes bodily injury' or 'attempts to cause bodily injury,'" he said. "But such acts are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone.

"Since every violent crime manifests some sort of 'hate,' it makes more sense to think of this as a 'thought crimes' law."

Matt Barber, a lawyer with the Liberty Counsel, commented: "As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. (Bingo.)

"It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence - under penalty of law - morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," said Barber.

According to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the measure is due for consideration by the full House this week.

U.S. House of Representatives switchboard:
202-224-3121
To look up local U.S. Representatives:
http://www.congress.org

Clinton on Sanger and our foreign policy...

IMHO this article shows why the prolife movement has been dealt a real bodyslam by the election of B.O. and his administration.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was confronted on her avowed commitment to eugenicist Margaret Sanger's global agenda, and asked whether the Obama administration would work to overturn pro-life laws around the world - a priority that Clinton confirmed. (Spreading the gospel of Moloch to all lands.)

In a hearing to discuss the Obama administration's foreign policy, New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith questioned Clinton on her statements upon receiving Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger award on March 27. Clinton had said she was "really in awe" of the Planned Parenthood founder.

"The 20th century reproductive rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race," Clinton had said. She also said that Sanger's work "is not done." (Not until any baby can be aborted anytime for any reason. Something to look forward to.)

Smith yesterday asked Clinton about her praise for Sanger's eugenic agenda, saying "it is extraordinarily difficult [to see] how anyone could be in awe" of Sanger, who "made no secret whatsoever" of her views.

"With all due respect, Madam Secretary, Sanger's legacy was indeed transformational, but not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, and unborn child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race," said Smith.

"Sanger's prolific writings dripped with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live," he continued. "Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist and racist, who said, and I quote, 'The most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.'

"She also said, on another occasion, quote, 'Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.'" (Was Hitler a fan of hers also?)

Smith asked, "As part of Sanger's work that remains undone," whether the Obama administration seeks "in any way to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in African and Latin American countries, either directly or through multilateral organizations, including and especially the United Nations, African Union, or the OAS, or by way of funding NGOs like Planned Parenthood?"

Clinton replied: "It is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate and everyone who agrees with you should be free to do so anywhere in the world, and so are we."

Clinton confirmed that the Obama administration's definition of "reproductive health" includes abortion, and that, "We are now an Administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care." (What bullshit!)

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska also told Clinton he was "stunned" by her commitment to Sanger, and that he was "deeply grieved" at her answer to Congressman Smith.

"She [Sanger] advocated for the elimination of the disabled, the downtrodden, and the Black child," Fortenberry objected. "I don't believe these ideologies have a place in our pluralistic society."

Decrying taxpayer funding of abortion overseas as "a form of neo-colonialism" that is "elitist, paternalistic, and an assault on the dignity of the poor," Fortenberry challenged Clinton to instead pursue foreign policy that "upholds the genius of womanhood and the life nestled within her."

Clinton responded by emphasizing that the "choice" to carry or kill an unborn child should be available "for all women." (This must be a great chance to see what goes on in the minds of proaborts. I'd guess her apparent willingness to come out as she has indicates she really does believe the stuff she spews. Against commitment as strong as this only miracles can prevail.)

Commenting in a later statement on Clinton's remarks, Smith said: "It is evident that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama want to force the tragedy of abortion upon women around the world especially and including in countries where democratically elected leaders want to continue to protect their unborn children.

"There are other ways in which both mother and baby are protected, cared for and helped - with food, nutrition, clean water and life-affirming healthcare," he said.

"Secretary Clinton's inability to see this will mean more babies will die and more women will suffer the consequence of abortion as a result of U.S. foreign policy overseas."

I suppose if the option of adoption was proposed it would be seen as trying to eradicate indigenous peoples and their cultures by oppressive white supremacists. So then the thinking would probably be it's better to kill the children than to rob them of their cultural heritage. I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm wondering if the proaborts are so twisted they'd easily fall into that line of thinking.

Body parts from embryos??

Found this via Drudge at the Daily Mail of the UK.

Couples could be allowed to store embryos in order to use them to create new body parts or cure diseases. (Am I the only one feeling sick?)

Government legal and ethical experts are to discuss whether families can ‘bank’ embryos not just for procreation but also for use by doctors to create personalised treatments for parents and their children.

Now, embryos – the first stage of life after an egg has been successfully fertilised – can be stored for up to five years but only for procreation.

But a huge ethical debate is set to erupt as the Government’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), moves closer to endorsing new developments in medical science.

It will debate whether embryos could be stored to harvest important stem cells that have the ability to turn into any tissue type in the body.

Research on using the cells is still in its infancy, but it is thought that within ten years it could lead to cures for degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and some forms of cancer.

The embryos could also be used to grow new organs and bodily ‘spare parts’. (Great, kill a child for a new set of tits if a woman has breast cancer?)

Scientists have already successfully transplanted a windpipe grown from a patient’s own adult stem cells.

However, storing embryonic cells is controversial as they allow the creation of embryos for a purpose other than new life. It means couples could have IVF simply to create a body-repair kit.
A US company is already offering this service, which it has described as an ‘investment’ for the future. (Love to know the name of this company. Isn't it funny how they remain anonymous?)

The HFEA will discuss the issue in July – and if it rules in favour of the proposals, they will automatically become policy.

Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘These proposals widen the scope for abuse of embryos. Commercial companies will inevitably seek to exploit people’s fears about degenerative diseases.

'This is about the commercialisation of human embryos, which is dehumanising.’

In October, a change to the law will allow embryos to be stored for 55 years, rather than five, meaning long-term banking could easily become a reality.

The HFEA has already ruled in favour of ‘saviour siblings’ – babies created using IVF and screened as embryos to be a tissue match for an existing child with a serious condition. (Kill one kid to save another. Sick.)

Once the baby is born, stem cells are taken from the umbilical cord blood and used as a cure, which experts say means the ethical leap for embryos to be used as a repair kit has already been made. (That is pure bullshit. Use of cord blood doesn't entail killing the embryo. Crap, what gall these assholes have!)

Several ‘saviour siblings’ have now been born, including Jamie Whitaker, of Derbyshire, whose donation of cord blood stem cells cured his brother Charlie of a rare form of anaemia.

Dr Richard Kennedy, of the British Fertility Society, said stem-cell technologies would improve over the next decade.

‘That might well open the door to this scenario which the HFEA is quite rightly discussing as an ethical issue.’ (DUH!)

Josephine Quintavalle, of campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘It is sadly almost inevitable that bespoke embryonic stem cells created from frozen surplus will become the latest must-have healthcare accessory.’

An HFEA spokesperson said: ‘Horizon scanning is part of our regulatory role. We look at developing technologies which may impact on the work we do.’

Random political thoughts...

B.O. made a promise during his campaign that 95% of Americans would see no increase by him in their taxes.

He recently upped the federal tax on cigarettes by sixty-two cents, since one in four adult Americans smoke he has broken that promise.

Cigarette smoking is done far more by those of limited education and income than not. So the increased tax burden is disproportionately felt by the poor.

The poor in this country are disproportionately represented by black folks. So B.O. hates "his own".

Just some random thoughts.

More on torture...

The other day I questioned the issue of torture in this post. In it I deliberately made a ridiculous comparison of some water polo games I played in as a kid and waterboarding going on at Gitmo. That was done to help prime the engine of discussion. Didn't really seem to have any effect, guess provocation is a skill I have to work at.

But I did get some responses, John Jansen came out against it while ABNPOPPA, the Most Rev. Gregori of the Orthodox Catholic Church and Sig94 all made comments that pretty much mirror my own feelings. In this post I'll address or reference all their comments.

John Jansen says, "The short answer is that torture is wrong because it's intrinsically immoral."

Well sorry JJ but that really doesn't go into too much detail as to why exactly you may consider it immoral. We're both Catholics who follow the teachings of the Catechism (which I'll get into later) but just what is it that makes torture in general and waterboarding in particular off limits?

John Jansen also references Mark Shea, a noted Catholic apologist & speaker, who JJ evidently feels can forward credible arguments against torture in general and waterboarding in particular. Sorry, but when I used the description in my original post of "hyperventilating hysterics" the writings such as Shea's are what I had in mind. Referring to his ideological opponents as "Rubber Hose Right" and "Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid drinkers" just cheapens any argument the man makes. It's an old trick, if you can't effectively debate someone on their ideas and beliefs just hold them up for derision and scorn, that supposedly is a valid way to discount their thinking.

Finally, John Jansen mentions the use of waterboarding by the Khmer Rouge. The article he references makes the distinction that the KR used it to elicit bogus confessions, the writer then goes on to make a connection that this thereby discredits any information possibly gained by our own use of it. Recent disclosures have shown that credible information WAS obtained by the interrogators at Gitmo using waterboarding. No, I don't think we should now wholeheartedly follow in the footsteps of every repressive regime in history. But any tool can be used OR abused. That includes intelligence gathering methods.

I'm more of the mind of ABNPOPPA who states, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if it is immoral. I'll water board your mother until the oceans run dry if it will save one American or one soldiers life..." Amen to that, this isn't an ice cream social our military is involved in and they should be backed to the hilt.

The Most Rev. Gregori makes the observation that, "...not one of those, who oppose torture, ever come up with an alternative way of getting much needed information." This is something I've also noticed. The old mindset of "don't call something unacceptable unless you have a better idea" has a lot of merit, especially when we're talking about gaining information to save the lives of innocent civilians (something that the waterboarding at Gitmo HAS reportedly done).

Finally, Sig94 makes the comment, "Torture, in this sense, is to inflict pain as a means to gain information. So let's see, if I spank my child, which is inflicting pain, when I know he is lying and he won't admit the truth, then I am torturing him."

That reasoning is actually accepted by too many so-called child welfare advocates. This illustrates the ridiculous lengths we as a nation are supposed to go to so we'll always be the undisputed "good guys" who wear white hats. Right now other interrogation methods are being called into question also, including sleep deprivation and screaming at an inmate. If that constitutes torture our submarine force is filled with sadists who practice it and masochists who endure it. Been there, done that, etc...

As luck would have it, I came across an article by another Catholic writer on the topic. Deal Hudson seems to have credibility equal to Mark Shea and doesn't belittle his opponents. That alone makes him more intellectually honest IMHO. Here's the article taken from InsideCatholic.com, referencing the Catechism of the Catholic Church for those items applicable to Catholics;

Over at Vox Nova some folks are discussing whether or not I have violated a “non-negotiable” teaching of the Catholic Church on torture.

This was occasioned by some comments I made to my friend Bobby Eberle, a Catholic himself, at his web site, GOPUSA. Bobby asked my advice on how to think, as a Catholic, about whether torture was morally justified, this being a topic much in the news lately.

Here is the section of Eberle’s column containing my comments:

In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy.

Hudson: ‘As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.”

Hudson further explained to me "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed."

Several bloggers have asked that I clarify what I meant, some have argued the Church’s teaching is a non-negotiable ban on torture, others view it as prudential, but in a very narrow range. The latter position is the one I was trying to describe.

I am not a big fan of torture, meaning, I find the very thought of it horrific. The notion of torturing an enemy is not something that makes my heart skip a beat.

Here is what I found when I looked up “torture” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

"2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors."

A few observations:

2297 does not explicitly rule out torture in the case of gathering information to protect the common good; a confession is not that, it is an admittance of personal guilt about a specific act or set of acts.

2298 seems like a more sweeping comment, where it says that they deny "legitimate rights" of the human person and we should work "for their abolition. I don’t read this as declaring a non-negotiable ban on torture, but I can see why there would reasonable disagreement on the issue. My hunch is that the language in 2298 about working to abolish torture is same as the Church saying we should work to abolish war itself.

When I spoke to Eberle, I was assuming any act of torture would take place with the context of war, in the face of clear and present danger to the common good. I realize people are skeptical about such reasoning in the wake of Iraq, but the Church recognizes that war is sometimes necessary, along with all suffering and death that accompanies it.

I am open to hearing the arguments supporting a ban against torture as a non-negotiable teaching of the Church.

I'll be posting on this topic more in the future. For now I'll just state that I believe the saving of American lives, military and civilian, justifies whatever it takes when getting information out of genuine bad guys. Take them apart with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers if thats what works, you can bill me for the propane.

But just as Deal Hudson is open to opposing arguments so am I (civil ones, personal attacks annoy me and will be deleted). After all, if I knew all the answers I'd probably be a lot richer than I am now (although probably no handsomer or happier!).

R.I.P.

The following military personnel were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan during the period of Apr. 5-11. Please spare a moment to pray for them and their families.

Sgt. Edward W. Forrest Jr., 25, MO
Pvt. Bryce E. Gautier, 22,CA
Staff Sgt. Bryan E. Hall, 32, CA
Cpl. Jason G. Pautsch, 20, IA
Staff Sgt. Gary L. Woods Jr., 24, KY
Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias, 28, PR
Lance Cpl. Blaise A. Oleski, 22, NY
Capt. Vasile-Iuliu Unguras, 32, Romania
Pvt. Azdin Chadli, 20, Netherlands
Spc. Adam M. Kuligowski, 21, VA

May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

What is torture and why is it not justified?

Frankly, I don't understand the hyperventilating hysteria associated with waterboarding. Someone please explain how this constitutes not just unacceptable torture but torture at all. From what I've read of it I'm reminded of nothing so much as the games of water polo we'd play as kids at the Islip Town Beach on Long Island. On more than one occasion I was certain I was going to die after being pushed and shoved as far down into the muck as my "friends" could send me. That didn't stop me the next time. By the way, I was never a popular kid. Too fat, too nerdy, too clumsy.

Did I go on to have an inordinate fear of the ocean? 22 years of service in the sub force says, "Nope".

Did I go out of my way to avoid any contact with water sports? "Nope" again (maybe that proves I'm not too bright either).

But even if it IS torture, when some genuine bad guy probably has information that might save a butt ton of lives and he refuses to give it up, aren't those folks questioning him duty bound to do whatever it takes to get that info?

We're not talking about gratuitous sadism here. The clowns that were waterboarded at Gitmo were genuinely noncooperative and hostile to their interrogators. After 9/11/01, if I was asking the questions I'd want to make damned sure I was getting answers and screw any attitudes of defiance.

And it worked too. Despite what the numerous detractors (including Sen. John McCain who himself experienced REAL torture as a POW) said, the answers given DID allow some terrorist plans to be nipped in the bud.

I'm serious. I'd really like to know just why this constitutes torture and why it would be unacceptable if it means the saving of innocent lives.

I just don't get it.

B.O.'s budget cuts in perspective.

Found at Always On Watch.

"Hey stupid, right now we're all Christians."

Which is a comment I wanted to leave but didn't.

I was on another blog tonight where the owner posted a WTF article about the leader of Paraguay. He's a former Catholic bishop who now admits to fathering a child out of wedlock while he was still in his clerical position. One of the commenters didn't let the opportunity for some Catholic bashing to go by. (Sigh) The blog owner is a decent sort whom I respect & admire, she didn't need any flame wars being started by my reaction to an idiot. Thats why I have my own blog.

There are plenty of smug, self righteous assholes to go around ALL the Christian denominations (including Catholics). Unfortunately they all too often are given a pass by their fellows. That might fly in previous times but IMHO we all need to wake the hell up, smell the coffee and realize there are bigger problems in this world.

Just looking at the popular culture in this nation I'd say it won't be too long before any Christian who espouses "traditional" values will find their ass in a sling. That includes Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Mormons (it's my blog, if I want to lump them in as Christians, I will.), and any others I may have missed.

So we'd all better learn how to pull together for the next few decades. If we're REALLY followers of Christ that shouldn't be too damned difficult.

As for the nitwit who slammed the Church, I'll be praying for her tonight. Like all too many of us, she probably needs it.

Morning after pill to be sold to minors soon.

They call this thing "Plan B". If "Plan A" was abstinence there'd be no need of "B".

WASHINGTON (AP) - Seventeen-year-olds will be able to buy the "morning-after" emergency contraceptive without a doctor's prescription, a decision that conservatives denounced as a blow to parental supervision of teens but that women's groups said represents sound science. (So "science" trumps morality. Noted.)

The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it would accept, not appeal, a federal judge's order that lifts Bush administration restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of "Plan B" to women 18 and older. U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled last month in a lawsuit filed in New York that President George W. Bush's appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access.

Women's groups said the FDA's action was long overdue, since the agency's own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions. (Lovely, when do they start selling it to thirteen year old girls? Don't tell me, I'd rather not know right now.)

Korman ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds get the birth control pills. He also directed the agency to evaluate clinical data to determine whether all age restrictions should be lifted.

The FDA's latest action does not mean that Plan B will be immediately available to 17-year-olds.The manufacturer must first submit a request. (Which will go through the confimation process like shit through a goose.)

"It's a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit. (Who said secularists had no religion? Science is now their god.)

Conservatives said politics drove the decision.

"Parents should be furious at the FDA's complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. (IMHO a good point. Seventeen year olds aren't allowed near naval reactors, when I was in the canoe club we'd occasionally get a lad who hadn't made his eighteenth birthday before reporting aboard the boat. They always warranted special attention, even though the ones I remember came to us during the shipyard construction period when the reactor installation was only a future deadline to be met. Bottom line, a seventeen year old boy or girl is not fully developed. Start dumping chemicals of ANY kind into their bodies and you're asking for trouble.)

Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of the contraceptive say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Recent research suggests that's possible but not likely. (Uh-huh. That sort of reasoning is the basis of lawsuits.)

The battle over access to Plan B has dragged on for the better part of a decade, through the terms of three FDA commissioners. Among many in the medical community, it came to symbolize the decline of science at the agency because top FDA managers refused to go along with the recommendations of scientific staff and outside advisers that the drug be made available with no age restrictions.

"The FDA got caught up in a saga, it got caught up in a drama," said Susan Wood, who served as the agency's top women's health official and resigned in 2005 over delays in issuing a decision. "This issue served as a clear example of the agency being taken off track, and it highlighted the problems FDA was facing in many other areas."

The treatment consists of two pills and sells for $35 to $60. Women must ask for Plan B at the pharmacy counter and show identification with their date of birth. The drug is made by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company. It does not prevent sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV/AIDS.

Supporters of broader access argued that Plan B is safe and effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy and could help reduce the number of abortions. (Like condoms? If you encourage risky behavior by decreasing the likelihood of consequences don't you take the chance of actually INCREASING the risk of those consequences?)

Opponents, including prominent conservatives, counter that it would encourage promiscuity and might even become a tool for criminals running prostitution rings, as well as for sexual predators.

Early in the Bush administration, more than 60 organizations petitioned the FDA to allow sales without a prescription. But according to court documents, the issue quickly became politicized.

In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23-4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.

In his ruling, Korman said that FDA staffers were told the White House had been involved in the decision on Plan B. The government said in court papers that politics played no role.

In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations sued in federal court to force an FDA decision.

The following year, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults. But the controversy raged on over access for teens. (Don't worry, our kids will soon be allowed to buy them without ever informing us. Soon after that they'll be able to get abortion on demand with no parental involvement either. Boy, do we suck!)

"Choose Life" plates up for debate in Texas Senate.

With a tip of the Stetson hat to Amy who first alerted me to this.

Austin, TX (LifeNews.com) -- A Texas state Senate committee has approved a bill that would create Choose Life specialty license plates. State motorists can purchase the plates at the Department of Motor Vehicles when they renew or obtain plates and part of the fees will go to pregnancy centers that provide women with abortion alternatives.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee approved the bill, SB 1098, on a 6-1 vote and now it heads to the full Senate for consideration.

The House Transportation Subcommittee on License Plates held a hearing earlier this month on the House version of the measure, HB 109, but did not take a vote following the discussion.

Rep. Larry Phillips, a Republican, is the sponsor of the that bill and 81 legislators have signed on as co-sponsors of it.

"This bill, although it has a message of 'Choose Life,' the funds are going to go to promote adoption, because that is obviously a great opportunity to give an alternative," he told the panel.

Joe Pojman, director of the Texas Alliance for Life, was one of several pro-life advocates supporting the bill and he presented petitions from more than 14,000 Texas residents who say they will purchase the plates should they become available.

"There is a tremendous need for the choose life plate to promote adoption in our state," he said.

Jonathan Saenz, the legislative director of the Free Market Foundation, also supports the plates.

“The people of Texas have a free speech right to proudly show their support for life and to encourage expectant mothers to choose life instead of abortion," he told LifeNews.com. "Adoption is one of the loving alternatives to abortion and this specialty plate will help raise money to support such efforts. We anticipate full support by this committee."

Abortion advocates strongly objected to allowing motorists the chance to purchase license plates supporting adoption and helping pregnant women.

"What we are discussing is neither adoption nor abortion — it is about free speech and this bill's potential to stifle that right," Dotty Griffith of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas claimed, according to a Houston Chronicle report. (You can't make this shit up.)

NARAL also opposed the bill with erroneous claims that pregnancy centers provide women with inaccurate information on how abortion yields mental health and medical risks.

They are also complaining because the bill stipulates that none of the funds can go to abortion centers. (DUH!!)

The Choose Life license plate would join the 130-plus available specialty plates currently in Texas.

Some 22 other states have Choose Life License plates on the road and they have raised more than $10 million for adoption and pregnancy centers. Virginia became the latest state when its governor signed a bill allowing them.

"Culture of death" indeed!

Time Magazine Promotes Euthanasia Kits Making Sure Assisted Suicide Really Kills

by Kathryn Jean Lopez, April 21, 2009 @ LifeNews.com

"Foolproofing Suicide with Euthanasia Test Kits." The matter-of-fact headline should chill you, especially since it didn't appear in some fringe publication or advocacy magazine. It appeared in Time magazine.

"When someone with a terminal illness decides to end their life by overdosing on barbiturates, they hope the drugs will lull them into a peaceful and permanent sleep," the article began.

But if these drugs have expired or are not dosed properly, “the would-be suicide victim may actually survive,” although possibly in a coma.

Thank heavens (yes, that was sarcasm), euthanasia advocates plan “to sell barbiturate-testing kits to confirm that deadly drug cocktails are, in fact, deadly.”

The kits debut in Britain in May for $50. (Watch for their introduction here shortly thereafter, if not via conventional channels then the internet.)

The “seriously ill” don't want to mess around when they're trying to kill themselves, says Dr. Philip Nitschke. “They want to know they have the right concentration of drugs so that if they take them in the suggested way, it will provide them with a peaceful death.”

I spoke with Nitschke in 2001. At the time, he was already being referred to as Australia's “Dr. Death,” a label he was proud of: “People only start calling you names if and when you become effective.

“Someone needs to provide this knowledge, training or recourse necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved (and) the troubled teen. (WTF!! Is there any such animal as an "untroubled" teen?) If we are to remain consistent and we believe that the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of sub-groups who don't meet our criteria.” (What's this "we" shit, white man?)

Thanks to the tireless work of Wesley J. Smith, a consumer advocate turned defender of human life, that interview has caused some trouble for Nitschke in his native Australia as he's crusaded to make euthanasia legal.

That Time magazine would consider covering a doctor who has advocated the right of troubled teenagers to kill themselves should set off all sorts of alarm bells. (No kidding!)

Nitschke is not alone. Dignitas is a euthanasia clinic that operates in Switzerland. Earlier this month, its founder, Ludwig Minelli, a human-rights lawyer, stated clearly that there should simply be no limits on suicide. “It is without conditions,” he said. “A human right is without any conditions except capacity.” (This is what happens when God is left out of public life. Just my opinion.)

If we don't question the issue of assisted suicide and its seeming acceptance as an almost casual reality by the media, we're going to realize quickly that we have moved way beyond debating extraordinary care and the legality of assisted suicide in terminal cases. They sure have at Dignitas. Mentally ill patients have been assisted in their suicides there. “Suicide is a very good possibility to escape a situation which you can't alter,” Minelli told the BBC.

What's next, an organization with centers in every city dedicated to helping end human life? (Like abortion mills?)

If this sounds like an overly dramatized slippery slope, then those who can should recall where we were about a half century ago on the issue of abortion.

Minelli is currently working to help a Canadian woman kill herself alongside her husband. George has heart disease, and she wants to avoid the heartache of losing him.

George's wife will suffer a deep and painful lose when her husband dies (naturally or otherwise). But her life will not be over. And there's something sick - verging on terminally so - about a society that instead of working to affirm life's value makes it easier to end it at any and then all stages. (Amen sister, amen.)

R.I.P.

The following military personnel were killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan during the period of March 29- Apr. 4. Please spare a moment to pray for them and their families

Sgt. Daniel J. Beard 24 NY
Lance Cpl. Stephen F. Dearmon 21 TN
Lance Cpl. Nelson M. Lantigua 20 FL
Sgt. Devin C. Poche 25 NC
Staff Sgt. Phillip A Myers 30 VA
Capt. Petre Tiberius 33 Romania

May the souls of the faithful departed, through
the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Goodbye fishwrap...

The Dallas Morning News is the fishwrap of choice for most households in this area. Having lived in the Northeast (for too long) I'll say it's fairly middle of the road when compared to some other rags in this nation.

I've kept up a subscription in order to see what might be happening that isn't sufficiently covered in the blogosphere or on the local all-news radio station. But not any more.

Since the Texas Legislature convened for the current session I've yet to read anything on bills introduced dealing with abortion, surrogate motherhood, human cloning, or embryonic stem cell research. To my way of thinking these are the sort of "if it bleeds, it leads" topics that would be prime material for a news organ. You know, something that would help drive sales while at the same time promoting discussion amongst the general public. Seems the only reason there would be silence on these is to QUELL public knowledge/discussion. Can you say, "media bias"? Sure you can!

So I'll be cancelling my subscription tomorrow. Too bad, so sad.

But what is really irritating is what I've already said. By comparison this is a middle-of-the-road newspaper. I really don't want to know whats going on with the rest of the MSM right now. I've a good enough indication as it is.

Flanking move on the war on abotion...

Flanking Movement in the Abortion Wars

BY JOSEPH A. D’AGOSTINO

NC REGISTER CORRESPONDENT

April 26-May 2, 2009 Issue Posted 4/17/09 at 7:08 AM

WASHINGTON — Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., doesn’t mince words: “Abortion on demand is the greatest single cause of death in the history of humanity.”

Unfortunately, easy access to abortion has been engrained into the characters of many Americans, and, moreover, abortion has been framed as a “woman’s right to control her own body.” How can the pro-life movement penetrate these ideological and practical defenses of pro-abortion forces in the same way that the debate over partial-birth abortion did?

Franks has a flanking maneuver ready to go. On March 31, he reintroduced the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PreNDA) to ban abortions sought due to the sex or race of the unborn child. Instead of attacking abortion head-on, this bill, like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, highlights an especially unpopular corner of the abortion business, one that pro-abortion politicians and activists don’t want anyone to talk about. Part of the reason: In 2006, Zogby found that 86% of Americans support banning sex-selective abortion.

Said Franks, who wants ultimately to ban abortion outright, “This may be the most important bill I’ve ever had the privilege to introduce, because I believe it could have the effect of redefining and reshaping the entire debate surrounding the protection of innocent unborn human life.”

Banning sex- and race-selective abortions is “something that every reasonable, decent human being should support,” he said. “And I believe it will win overwhelming support if it reaches the floor of Congress.”

Last year, Franks had five co-sponsors when he introduced the bill for the first time. This year, he had 28 as of April 7, including the third-ranking Republican in the House, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Indiana), and a handful of Democrats, though no members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The bill (H.R. 1822) exempts aborting mothers from punishment, but health professionals would be required to report any violation.

“I think that the most important thing is that everyone understands that this is a civil rights issue, a human-rights issue,” said Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union. “Many people would like to say that gender-selective abortion is not occurring in the United States. But it is.”

A study published in the April 15, 2008, edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by two Columbia researchers found that data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses showed a strong trend toward sex-selective abortion among the Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian communities that they studied.

“We find that the sex ratio of the oldest child to be normal, but that of subsequent children to be heavily male if there was no previous son,” they wrote. The ratio of boys to girls among second children was 1.17:1 and among third, an astonishing 1.51:1.

‘Greatest Genocide in History’

A blood test detecting a child’s sex as early as five weeks was first marketed to consumers directly in 2005, and the number of Asian immigrants has increased substantially since the 2000 Census. The 2010 Census may reveal more sinister statistics.

“I think that sex-selective abortions do occur in the general population, but some are performed on little boys, so they don’t show up in the numbers,” said Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute. White Americans may perform sex-selective abortions to ensure a supposed balance between the numbers of boys and girls in their families, he said.

Though there are no statistics showing such direct proof for race-selective abortions, Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., said there is plenty of indirect evidence.

“We have a higher proportion of abortions,” said King, pastoral associate of Priests for Life. “The proportion of children aborted now approaches half of black babies.” She calls the situation “genocide” and pointed to the undercover work by Lila Rose of Live Action and James O’Keefe, who pretended to be racists who wanted to give Planned Parenthood donations to abort black women’s children. No Planned Parenthood employee refused the money.

An August 2008 study by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute found the proportion of abortions performed on white women has declined, while the proportion performed on black and Hispanic women has risen. Only 1% of white women had an abortion in 2004, while 3% of Hispanic women and 5% of black women did. Black women, 13% of the female population, now account for 37% of abortions.

Franks said that publicity can only help his effort to enact PreNDA.

“This will gather strength the more it’s talked about and discussed,” he said. “Your readers should call their members of Congress, and we should see it introduced in state legislatures.” He contended that PreNDA will help draw attention to the central question: “Does abortion kill an innocent human being, Yes or No? If so, then America is at the epicenter of the greatest genocide in history.”

Such small steps against abortion are still possible, as an Ohio law that went into effect April 7 shows. The new law, the Protecting Pregnant Women from Coercion & Violence Act, requires abortion businesses to display a poster in their waiting areas making it clear to women that no one can coerce or pressure them into having an abortion.

The notice will indicate that an abortion can only be performed if the woman signs a consent form, and will also inform the woman that if she is coerced, she should not sign the form and should inform abortion business employees.

Neither the White House nor NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) would comment on PreNDA or the issue of sex- and race-selective abortion. (Imagine that, no matter what answer they give they're likely to be in a no-win situation.)

The further legitimization of homosexuality...

Fed. Judiciary Committee to Examine Homosexualist "Hate Crimes" Bill Monday

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - U.S. Representative Barney Frank announced Thursday that the House Judiciary Committee will be considering hate crimes legislation, H.R. 1913, this coming week of April 20. Frank is expecting the committee to pass the bill and send it to the House to vote on later this spring, according to a news release issued by Rep. Frank last week.

H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, would add sexual orientation to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law and would expand federal power to investigate hate crimes. The bill was first introduced into the House on April 2 by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D - Mich.), chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

"The law already increases penalties for crimes motivated by hatred in several categories, so the absence of protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people is particularly egregious," commented Frank in his release.

President Obama has expressed eagerness to place sexual orientation discrimination on a par with that of religion and race, and pledged his support for the earlier incarnation of the bill.

Identical to the Matthew Shepard Act of 2007, H.R. 1913 has alarmed conservatives on Capitol Hill and across the country who are decrying the outcome of similar laws in countries such as Canada and England, where it has hamstrung free expression of fundamental moral and Christian values.

The Family Research Council (FRC) is promoting a petition against the bill (http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/).

"What 'hate crimes' legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith," wrote Tony Perkins, president of the FRC, in an email to constituents. Perkins noted that, in a similar hearing last Congress, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) admitted that pastors could be arrested for hate crimes under the legislation.

"All freedom loving Americans must voice their opposition to this bill," said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "If this bill passes it lays the foundation for censoring Christians.

"In other countries, like in Canada and Sweden, where these types of hate crime laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been jailed and fined for their faithful adherence to the biblical values."

In one particularly famous case, in 2007 Canada's Alberta Human Rights Commission fined a Christian pastor several thousand dollars and ordered him to apologize and desist from ever again expressing his views on homosexuality in any public forum, after he publicly questioned the homosexual lifestyle and political agenda. The Commission ruled that a letter-to-the-editor by the pastor that was published in a local newspaper exposed homosexuals to "hatred and contempt." The Commission also said that the letter may have contributed to a later beating of a homosexual teenager in the pastor's area, despite the total absence of evidence linking the events.

A University of Calgary professor had filed the complaint against Pastor Stephen Boissoin for a letter he wrote to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, in which he called the homosexual lifestyle immoral and dangerous, and challenged the encroachment of homosexualist curricula in schools throughout the province.

There have been numerous other similar cases that have taken place in Canada and the U.K.

Hate crime laws don't make sense to me. If it's more heinous to commit a crime against a minority doesn't that place the minority above the rest of us? An "elite"?

Not quite equal before the law it seems.

This particular legislation also furthers the legitimization of an unnatural and abhorrent lifestyle.

"My Chance"

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, April 16, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A moving new pro-life song is making waves after winning a leading Christian music award late last month.

"My Chance," sung by Jaime Thietten and written by Rick Shadrick and J.T. Tallent, tells the story of a young woman haunted some time after succumbing to pressure to abort.

"We couldn't wait to bring him home. Ain't it funny how you forget? We were gonna call him Chance," she sings. Later the listener learns that the woman, who is portrayed as mourning her child into her old age, was never able to conceive again - a frequent tragedy for post-abortive women.

"They promised we'd never regret, and to this day their words still hurt. We prayed each day that God would understand, but we never got a second Chance," she sings. "'He was my one, my only Chance."

(To view the music video for "My Chance", go to: http://www.jtmusic.net/home/)

The song received the "Song of the Year" award at this year's Momentum Award ceremonies in Nashville on March 28. The Momentum Awards are considered by some to be the premier award recognition program for Christian independent musicians.

Thietten and the powerful words of her song were then recognized in an April 10 National Right to Life Committee "News and Views" column. While a new name to the pro-life movement, Christian AC and inspirational artist Jaime Thietten has made a career of her extraordinary vocal talent for the past ten years.

"I'm so grateful for the award," said Thietten, referring to the success of "My Chance." "So many people keep telling me the song is about to explode. This will certainly help it on its way to being a catalyst for healing in thousands of broken lives.

"Music is a powerful force, and so often reaches where words can't," she said.

Thietten added that the group behind the song is "trying very hard to get it heard by the people who need it most," citing a statistic by the Guttmacher institute that over 70% of U.S. abortions are carried out by those who claim to be Christian.

The song has particularly deep meaning for Jaime, who says she and her husband have been trying unsuccessfully to have children for ten years.

"My hope is that women [with crisis pregnancies] will come forward and realize that there is someone who will love their baby, who will take care of their baby as their own," she said. "A lot of times, people ... are under the impression that if the baby is not wanted, then it doesn't need to come into the world, and that's not true because a baby is always wanted.

"if you are in this decision making process of what you should do - give that baby a chance. Give me a chance to be a mom, and I think that your life will have much bigger meaning, that you can be a hero to this baby."

Texas prolife legislation update...

The following bills are due for a public hearing next week. Any prolife Texans who can attend these events are urged to do so. Our voice needs to be heard.

HB 36 (Companion to SB182). Relating to informed consent to an abortion.Scheduled for public hearing on 4/21/2009

HB 543 (Companion to SB1802). Relating to prohibiting human cloning and other uses of human tissue by institutions of higher education; providing penalties.Scheduled for public hearing on 4/21/2009

HB 1190 (Companion to SB641). Relating to prohibiting human cloning; providing a penalty.4/21/2009 H Scheduled for public hearing on 4/21/2009

HB 3796 . Relating to informed and voluntary consent for an abortion and the collection and reporting of information related to the performance of an abortion; providing penalties.Scheduled for public hearing on 4/21/2009

Texas Medical Association goes over to Moloch...

Found this via LifeEthics.org This is from the Texas Medical Association website.

TMA, AMA, and state medical societies across the country support the Obama administration's plan to rescind a federal rule that prohibits recipients of federal funds from forcing physicians and other health care professionals to participate in actions they find religiously or morally objectionable.(So much for freedom of belief.)

In a letter to Acting Health and Human Services (HHS) Administrator Charles E. Johnson, the groups said the Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers regulation, adopted by the Bush administration in December, is unnecessary and could have far-reaching implications. They said it "could undermine patients' access to vital medical care and information, impede advances in biomedical research, and create confusion and uncertainty among physicians, other health care professionals, and health care institutions about their legal and ethical obligations to treat patients." (All of this over an "elective procedure" as I think abortion is termed, possible refusal to dispense abortion inducing drugs, or anything else associated with the culture of death.)

They wrote that they support "strong conscience protections" for physicians, residents, and medical students and other health professionals, especially when it comes to abortion. No physician, hospital, or hospital employee should be required to perform an act that violates good medical judgment or personally held moral principles. "However, while we support the legitimate conscience rights of individual health care professionals, the exercise of these rights must be balanced against the fundamental obligations of the medical profession and physicians' paramount responsibility and commitment to serving the needs of their patients. As advocates for our patients, we strongly support patients' access to comprehensive reproductive health care and freedom of communication between physicians and their patients, and oppose government interference in the practice of medicine or the use of health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population." (Translation; "Your beliefs will be grudingly tolerated as long as they don't get in anybody's way.")

Other points in the letter include:

Abortion education should be encouraged "so medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal, and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy …" The letter adds that "the observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in abortion should not be required." Resident training should include "specific educational standards for the knowledge and skills associated with pregnancy termination that allow an exclusion for individuals or residency programs with religious/moral objections or legal restrictions." (Uh-huh. Sounds like "trust me".)

Several provisions and definitions in the rule "are ambiguous, overly broad, and could lead to differing interpretations causing unnecessary confusion among health care institutions and professionals, thereby potentially impeding patients' access to needed health care services and information." The rule, for example, defines "health service program" as "any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded, in whole or in part" by HHS. "This definition inappropriately expands the scope of the conscience provisions beyond family planning and abortion services to include virtually any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research," the letter says. (A straw man argument. Theres no reason it SHOULDN'T include any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research. This is all about pushing abortion & contraception.)

The rule does not address how conscience rights of individuals and institutions apply in emergencies. (How many times would an abortion be required in an emergency? Slim to none I'd bet.)

The authors of this POS sound very pious and righteous in their anxiety over unspecified situations where the personal beliefs of a healthcare professional might affect the health of a patient. What would happen if a Muslim doctor refused to tend to a patient of the opposite sex because it went against their personal beliefs? My bet is there would be zippo consequences. It's all about the further forced acceptance of abotion in our society.

Glad I didn't go to college

Found this via Spero News. Kind of turns my stomach. At times like this I remember the War Department has legacy privleges at Baylor University. It's a Southern Baptist institution that started allowing coed dancing only about a decade or so ago. My kind of school I'm thinking. Go Bears!


College students across the U.S. have been watching porn. More specifically, they have been watching hard-core porn in campus lecture halls, assembly rooms and theaters…with universities’ approval. (Dear Mom & Dad, College is great fun. Send more money.)


Free on-campus screenings of the pornographic film Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge, the most expensive hard-core porn film ever made, have been taking place at various colleges and universities across the nation. The distributor of the film, Digital Playground, recently began offering screenings to student unions, and universities have been showing the movie for “entertainment and educational purposes.” (Does this mean anytime I hit a stripper club I was being "educated"? Where's my degree?)


"It's no surprise that Digital Playground is organizing these screenings on university campuses,” says Michael Leahy, author of the newly-released Porn University: What College Students Are Really Saying About Sex on Campus. “It’s the latest effort by the U.S. porn industry to get broader, mainstream acceptance of their newest ‘product.’”


Many universities, such as Northwestern University and Carnegie Mellon, have shown the film without much controversy or retaliation. The University of Maryland, on the other hand, has become the center of a political debate over government interference with freedom of speech rights on college campuses.


“The porn industry is trying a new approach by taking their same old, tired product and packaging it in a shiny new wrapper that mimics certain aspects of a big budget Hollywood movie,” continues Leahy. “It's their latest effort at mainstreaming hard-core porn, this at a time when they feel like public scrutiny and objection to pornographic content is at an all-time low.” (They'd be right, the reason the War Department and I unhooked the TV was the gratuitous sex 24/7. Neither one of us would be considered prudes.)


Digital Playground says the film, released last fall, cost $10 million to produce. Considering the 2006 revenues of the U.S. porn industry were $13.3 billion (larger than the revenues of the NFL, NBA and MLB combined), $10 million is a small price to pay for this “blockbuster adult movie.” The two-and-a-half hour flick has fight sequences and over 600 special effects. But Leahy warns not to be fooled.


“It’s still hard-core porn. Objectifying, sexualizing, and wholly degrading to both women and men. Yet some passive university administrators and faculty still want to see it as an acceptable part of the educational process. Mind-boggling! Is anyone telling these kids that once they graduate, viewing material like this during their lunch break on their work computer would get them fired on the spot for opening their employer up to multi-million dollar litigation risks? I fail to see how endorsing students’ viewing of porn on campus is somehow preparing them to enter the workforce.”

Michael’s new book also focuses on the minds of college students although in a different way. Porn University revolves around the results of an online sex survey taken by more than 26,000 college and university students over the past three years. Leahy analyzes the findings and offers eye-opening insights into the sexual behaviors, beliefs and attitudes of today’s college student.



"The findings discussed in my book show pretty clearly why the porn industry loves catering to a younger college audience, especially since most university administrations don't have the backbone to resist popular pro-porn sentiment that exists on most university campuses in the U.S.,” Leahy says. “This is yet another reason why we need to start thinking seriously about putting a new kind of 'warning label' on the industry and their products. The negative impact viewing porn can have on how we view ourselves and act toward others in relationships is undeniable." (Where is the outrage from NOW and it's ilk? Never mind, they're too busy promoting abortion access for teens.)

Sticking their noses where they damned well don't belong...

Found this via Spero News. I've heard the USCCB described as the Judas Iscariot Fan Club or the Democratic Party at prayer. Here's a great example why.

Bishop Howard J Hubbard, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), welcomed the Obama administration's decision to relax restrictions on Cuban-American travel and regulation in remittances to Cuba, saying that it is 'long overdue' and 'an important change in US policy towards Cuba.' (Since when do the bishops become foreign policy wonks? Hell, they won't even issue a statement regarding B.O. speaking at Notre Shame/Dame and THAT would be more their business than anything like this.)

In an April 15 letter to Daniel Restrepo, Senior Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security Council, Bishop Hubbard wrote 'The USCCB has for many years called for relaxing the sanctions against Cuba. These policies have largely failed to promote greater freedom, democracy and respect for human rights in Cuba.' He added: 'Improving the lives of the Cuban people and encouraging human rights in Cuba will best be advanced through more rather than less contact between the Cuban and American people.' (It's worked so well in China, don't ya know.)

Bishop Hubbard also urged the Administration to build on the President's action and work with Congress to remove travel restrictions to Cuba for all Americans.

This pack of fools can't empty piss out of a boot that has the instructions upside down on the heel and THEY'RE giving advice on foreign policy? Give me a break!

Georgetown leaves the Church...

Found at Catholic News Agency. My comments are in red.

Washington D.C., Apr 16, 2009 / 05:15 pm (CNA).- Georgetown University’s decision to comply with a White House request to cover up the “IHS” monogram representing Jesus' name at President Obama’s speech on Wednesday is drawing fire from the Cardinal Newman Society and Georgetown students, who are charging the university with “sacrificing” its “Catholic and Jesuit identity.” (No shit!)

Reports surfaced today from attendees at President Obama's speech on the economy that the White House asked Georgetown University to cover up several emblems, including an IHS monogram above the president's head during his speech at the Jesuit university. (This request came from staff of a Chief Executive who touted his "Christian beliefs" in his books and on the campaign trail. Interesting.)

Although President Obama focused his speech on his administration’s plans to spur economic growth, some in attendance noticed that the IHS monogram—an early 3rd century abbreviation for the name of Jesus—was covered up for the speech.

CNA attempted to confirm the report with Georgetown officials, but no one available for comment before press time. (Hiding under their desks probably, wondering how to spin this sucker.)

However, Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at the university, told CNSNews.com that the covering up of Jesus' name was prompted by “logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event.” (WTF kinda doubletalk is that?) According to Bataille, “Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage.” (And if they'd said "No" what would the result have been? B.O. is already taking heat about his upcoming speech at Notre Shame/Dame, think he'd rock the boat any on this issue?)

She said the “signage and symbols” were covered up because “the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross” and that it seemed more “respectful to have them covered” (Respectful to who?) so that viewers wouldn’t see them “out of context.”

Patrick Reilly, the President of the Cardinal Newman Society, reacted to the report by telling CNA that Georgetown’s decision is another “outrageous example of a Catholic university sacrificing principle for prestige.”

He wondered what the White House will request next month at Notre Dame’s commencement and said, “Christians simply cannot hide our faith in a drawer to satisfy an American president who shows no respect for Catholic identity or values.” (Bingo!)

Georgetown students were also outraged by the University’s actions. (Good news, there are some students with backbone, morals & brains.)

Paul Courtney, a Catholic Georgetown student and President of the Georgetown College Republicans, was an attendee at the Wednesday speech. He called the move “disheartening” and “sad” that the University would sacrifice its “Catholic and Jesuit identity” by covering the monogram. (I admire his restraint.)

Courtney didn’t notice that the symbol was covered, and explained that “one of my professors pointed it out to me afterwards when we were discussing the event.” (Understandable, when you're used to something being in a certain place you may overlook it's absence the first time.)

Courtney hypothesized that the White House made the request because, “President Obama didn't want any symbols to appear in the photo that might suggest that there's any higher authority than him.” (Ouch! I wouldn't slam a shithouse door that hard! Wonder who he voted for last November?)

Last year, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at Georgetown and “none of the stage was shrouded,” added Courtney. (Go figure.)

CNA attempted to reach Georgetown’s College Democrats for comment, but they were also not available in time for publication. (Must be a lot of room under those desks.)

Another Catholic student, Dave Gregory, who heads the Knights of Columbus council at Georgetown, said the University has covered up religious imagery for “High Holy Days and non-Catholic religious services” on the “infrequent occasion” that the services are held in Gaston Hall, the site of Obama’s speech. (Yeah, that's also understandable. Accomodating other religious beliefs and placing yours second to a temporal power are different.)

Gregory told CNA that President Obama's visit was “by no means contingent upon the covering of the IHS,” saying that he strongly doubted that “Obama's staff would have canceled the event.” (My thoughts exactly. But probably for different reasons.)

Georgetown’s decision to cover up the symbol did not surprise Gregory either, who said he thought it is “a bit shameful that they did so, as Georgetown has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.” (Now they do.)

Gregory said he believes that the White House and Georgetown’s administration are just trying to “produce excuses and rationalize their inappropriate decision,” and that he would not be surprised if there is more to the matter than is being shared with the media.

Here's my thinking; weren't early Christians often martyred because they refused to place Christ second to Caesar? If I remember correctly, the Romans were okay with just about all religious beliefs as long as the guy in Rome got top billing. Something about that First Commandment kinda got in the way though, the bit about "...strange gods before me." So if it was so important then isn't it equally important now?

Control of the internet?

Here's the story; http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

It's another one of those "I can't believe this shit." pieces of news that I went to a few seperate sources to verify. It's the real deal folks.

IMHO nobody should be controlling the internet. Period.

Let me say that I doubt B.O. & Company would ever misuse this thing. He's being too closely watched right now and if he gets elected for a second term I'll eat this keyboard. So he'll not have the opportunity.

But as I've said before, he's a symptom of our times and not one solely owned by the political liberals in this country. Let this or something like it be ennacted and we're one step further down the road of giving up our freedoms. They can be given up to conservatives as well as liberals.

I often marvel at the development of personal computers and the internet. The War Department may one day strangle me for saying (again) it's as great as the introduction of Guttenberg's moveable type printing press. I believe it's that important.

For an idea of how it helps keep everyone honest and facilitates freedom of speech, remember "Rathergate" when Dan Rather happily pounced on a source that showed G.W. Bush had received undue favoritism while in the National Guard. Thanks to the geeks on the net it was quickly established the source was a fraud. The rest is history.

So paving the way for Big Brother to seize control of this information source is dead wrong, no matter how seemingly noble the motivation.

I don't know about anyone else, but prior to using the 'net I believed I must be an oddity for my outmoded and anachronistic beliefs. Turns out I've got plenty of company and it's a good company to be in at that! When people feel they're not alone in their beliefs who knows what may come about? Tea parties maybe?

Let the government get involved and misfits like us may once again feel isolated. Which just might be the goal of some fool.