How Reporters Smoked Ferguson, Missouri

Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

What started out as a local shooting death in an average neighborhood in the township of Ferguson just outside of St. Louis City has become a media crack house.  The immediate rush to label this a racially-motivated incident, even murder, has been nothing less than a call to get high for journalists. 

Thus, in the two weeks since the shooting, journalists from news networks, citizen journalists, and bloggers have come running to St. Louis, salivating like Pavlov’s dogs.  A story about a white cop who shoots an unarmed black teenager in cold blood is a tremendous fix, even if they have to cook that narrative up with as few facts as possible.

The story hasn’t turned out to be what they had anticipated, however, as things aren’t always as simple as they appear.  Details surrounding the incident came out drop by uncomfortable drop, revealing a fuller picture that perhaps Officer Darren Wilson had probable cause to shoot and kill.  No matter.  What has supplied the media with continuous fixes are the looters and the rioters, the police with tear gas, the insertion of politicians called to “do something” about civil unrest, the arrival (and departure) of the National Guard, and even the federal government carving out a role for itself in a neighborhood that is better measured in square yards than in square miles.

Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

And so two weeks later, with no new developments in the investigation into the shooting, that story seems to have faded significantly as the reporters themselves have taken center stage.  The media now appear to be like a large flock of pigeons flitting up and down West Florissant Avenue.  They have nailed down canopies, and reporters can be spotted at almost every street corner psychoanalyzing everything from the gunshot pattern to voting practices of the state.

It just feels and smells like they are here to put themselves on camera. And I’m not the only one who is saying that. One journalist and one photographer have recently written blog posts about why they are leaving Ferguson, and they are doing it for all the right reasons. Ryan L. Schuessler, a freelance journalist shares one of his observations:

“One reporter who, last night, said he came to Ferguson as a “networking opportunity.” He later asked me to take a picture of him with Anderson Cooper.”

He writes

“There are now hundreds of journalists from all over the world coming to Ferguson to film what has become a spectacle. I get the sense that many feel this is their career-maker. In the early days of all this, I was warmly greeted and approached by Ferguson residents. They were glad that journalists were there. The past two days, they do not even look at me and blatantly ignore me. I recognize that I am now just another journalist to them, and their frustration with us is clear. In the beginning there was a recognizable need for media presence, but this is the other extreme. They need time to work through this as a community, without the cameras. 

We should all be ashamed, and I cannot do it anymore. I am thankful for my gracious editors who understand that.”

Photographer Abe Van Dyke confesses he felt like part of the problem.

“When the skies turn dark is when troublemakers come out which has led to night after night of violence in this small community. Expecting the worst, an increasing amount of amateur, foreign and domestic journalists came into town. At one point there appeared to be as many media members as there were protestors...”

“A woman was pepper sprayed and a civilian medic needed to attend to her which brought the media to completely surround her and the medic.

To me this is the point where the media is no longer simply reporting what is happening but rather becoming a hindrance and making the situation worse. Over the past few days journalists have been a part of inciting protestors by getting dangerously close and not always following police orders...”

“I am no saint. I photographed alongside everyone tonight and was part of the problem. I refused to follow police orders and only moved when threatened by arrest or with the flow of the crowd.

I am embarrassed by the way the media acted tonight, myself included and have decided that the media is now a problem in Ferguson. I will be leaving Missouri in the morning while hundreds of other journalists will continue to record events and battle with police for the right to be there.”

Photo courtesy of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

It hasn’t been all bad though.  Media, eager to scoop up anything they can find, have unwittingly outed the great number of out-of-town protesters among the locals, perhaps even outnumbering the locals.  Known Marxist revolutionaries, New Black Panthers, and professional agitators have been spotted in the streets.  Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have paid a token visit.  Eric Holder too.  I wonder how many of them even know the names of Michael Brown’s parents. 

Clearly, the situation in Ferguson has become ridiculously media-driven.  It would be better for the community if the cameras were put away at this point, because it can be difficult to tell if marchers are marching for Michael Brown or marching for the camera…and some looted hair extensions.  And the journalists?  I think it will be hard for them too.  They will stay at least through the Michael Brown funeral.  There’s still a little life left in Ferguson they have to burn and smoke before they finally look elsewhere.

The Deportation of the Politically Incorrect

The story of this family has been in and out of the news over the last six years.  But the final word from the Justice Department towards the Romeike family is that the freedom to live however you like only applies if you're gay, a Muslim, or a Mexican illegal...or if you're a gay Muslim Mexican illegal.

Obama Admin. Wins Battle to Deport Christian Home School Family

For those of you who like to say you keep your attentions focused solely on the Gospel, how much injustice do you let pass before you in an effort not to appear controversial to those whom you're trying to earn their approval (and perhaps buy their conversion)? I admit I've heard a lot of sermons admonishing Christians to live out the Gospel by helping the needy and oppressed. Isn't it strange that when the oppressed fall outside politically correct spheres that suddenly the Gospel isn't about helping them in their time of need?

Supposedly, the rationale for deportation goes a little like this:  Germany's government wants to foster "pluralism," and home schooling somehow isn't pluralistic. That attitude self-refutes, because if the German government likes pluralism, then this family is a great example of their society exercising pluralism by schooling their children outside their ethnocentric norms.  For our Justice Department to look at this and deport them for no good reason should be a violation of civil rights--after all, this Administration is big on giving civil rights to non-citizens of the US, right?

However, the biggest hypocrites of all I see are Christian hipsters who imagine themselves too cool to get involved. Hipsterism says that global warming and $20 birth control are real crises, and the solution is obviously to drink more Starbuck's coffee in disposable plastic cups and wage an expensive campaign to force everyone to pay for "free" carcinogens (birth control pills).  Standing up for the liberty of a Christian family to teach the three R's while saving energy (on gas and clothing) and dispensing with schoolyard bullying is obviously not as cool today as standing up for the gay Muslim Mexican illegal's right to marry another gay Muslim Mexican illegal in a church.  

UPDATE:  According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), The Department of Homeland Security (I know, huh?) has declared that the Romeike family can stay in the US permanently.  Hallelujah!

From their Facebook status update:

BREAKING NEWS!!! The Romeikes can stay!!!
Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.) This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God.We also want to thank those of who spoke up on this issue--including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.This is an amazing turnaround in 24 hours. Praise the Lord. Proverbs 21: 1 "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord, He guides it wherever He pleases."~~Michael Farris

Obamacare, America is just not that into you.

The United States is into week three after the official launch of the Obamacare exchanges website and.....things are not looking so good for Pres. Obama's namesake health care plan.  Not only does the website fail to work properly in the majority of cases, the numbers of people who are ultimately choosing to buy their health insurance from the government is pathetically low.  Let's just face it.  Obamacare, we're just not that into you.  

The literal bottom line is that the Unaffordable Lack-of-Care and Patient Victimization Act needs you more than you need it. And why buy insurance, when you can have Medicaid for free?

CBS This Morning reports that Medicaid enrollment has been high, while Obamacare--well, you know that story. And thus actuates what conservatives have been saying about statist large-scale schemes to fund things do not work over the long haul. In health control's case, unlike Social Security, we will be seeing its failure a lot sooner than later.  In addition, the cost of that failure will be enough to rupture the average American's pants if not the entire US economy.

"Die! Die! Die!"

Yes, I enjoyed that wholesome family sit com Home Improvement.  It was one of the few contemporary family sit coms that still acknowledged common sense in everyday living instead of rationalizing ostentatious behavior as normative.  But I digress...in one episode the Taylor family goes to open mic poetry night at a local restaurant(?), and the first poem read is by a woman in Goth regalia.

"Die!"
"Die!"
"Die!" she poeticizes into the microphone.  Everyone looks around as it is apparent that that is all there is to this poem.

"You first," mutters Randy.  And that response is about as common sense as it gets.

Just two states over from where I live, a chilling high school banner reads:  "ZERO POPULATION GROWTH; IT'S UP TO YOU - NO MORE THAN TWO."  Wow.  So few words; so lengthy a message.  Apparently, zero is a good thing, and "you" must limit yourself to having two children (that's the unstated indirect object) in your lifetime.  Pretty heavy for high school, don't you think?

The one wrong thing to do about this poster is to give credit for any of the words on it.  First, zero population growth is not "zero population growth."  It is population stagnation, and if that is the goal, it would be similar to sloganing "Zero Economic Growth; It's Up To You - No More Than [insert arbitrary income level here]."  What the slogan does not recognize is that there is such a thing as an already declining birth rate, and that there is such a thing as a death rate.  As it stands, every major developed country is experiencing non-replacement birth rates.  I attended a conference last weekend, and the esteemed speaker, Dr. Craig Mitchell, had related to the audience that Japan in 2012 was the first year that purchases for adult diapers exceeded the purchases of baby diapers.  The irony of zero population growth is that it is not a controllable data point.  Populations cannot be controlled; they either rise or they fall destructively due to artificial stresses on society.  A birth rate equal to that of the death rate is unattainable through effort, because there are too many variables.

But that isn't the real goal, is it?  If you've been around the pro-life block several times like I have, you know that zero population growth isn't about balance.  It is not even about the environment as often touted.  No, environmental concerns are a smokescreen for gaining greater control by the powerful over the less powerful.  It is about instituting mass manipulation as fulfillment of a marginalized ideology that would never gain popularity if not for a generous bit of sophistry and fascism.  Every tyrant and dictator to have come into power since the 20th century has launched a campaign to reduce their local population to a "manageable" size.  The killing fields of Tuol Sleng, the failed agriculture scheme of Mao, the mass executions of Stalin--all done in the effort to stamp out dissent and the distasteful ideas that people should be free to earn and reproduce as they see fit, not as a central planner sees fit.

So "IT'S UP TO YOU," is not a word of encouragement.  It's a demand.  And given that there is absolutely zero context given to this poster, we can assume that all methods of meeting this goal may be implemented:  carcinogenic contraception, abortion, sterilization, gendercide.  Of course, these things done voluntarily is preferred, I'm sure.  Involuntary methods, however, are just one refusal away.

Sure, we'll get to the point where there are more elderly people to care for than there are caretakers.  Oh, but don't worry, the anti-humanitarian laws being introduced today will make executing them easier tomorrow by labeling it a "GOOD DEATH; IT'S UP TO YOU - ONE AND DONE."

You first.

Addendum: I find it ironic that those who advocate population reduction and control never include themselves in that population that must be reduced or controlled. Of course, they justify that kind of elitism with implying that no one would spread their message if they would volunteer to leave the land of the living first. But I would remind everyone that the ideology that has spawned their protests has come from people long dead now, and they should fear not for the immortality of their worldview. After all, in the words of Margaret Sanger, "there is nothing they do that hasn't been done before," so to be consistent, these population bombers should lead by example and be the first to improve the state of the earth by throwing themselves into the ovens. With popular support of euthanasia among them, why delay?

Abortion, The End of Science

The nerd in me finds this stuff fascinating.  Towards the end, scientist Drew Barry says that scientific discovery is just part of the goal of eradicating disease and poverty.  Now, please think about that:  science is useful for discovering ways to cure disease (and by "poverty," I assume he means physical disabilities that prevent people from being able to work to provide for themselves).  Who thinks that is a bad thing?  No one, right(?)...we think...except that the idea of using science to cure disease and to make people well runs directly counter to the prevailing indoctrination that abortion is used to cure disease and eliminate poverty.  Why pursue scientific discovery for the purpose of advancing medicine when the most efficient method of eradicating disease and poverty is abortion?

Not only that, abortion is touted as a right and classified as a right by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Notice what has happened here--scientific medical treatment is not a right.  Therefore, no one has a right to demand a cure or treatment for disease.  As much as liberal politicians talk about health care being a "right," the truth is that has not been established by a court decision.  But abortion has.

Now we come to a certain dilemma.  If abortion is a right, then there is nothing about it that can be criticized.  In fact, being a right means it is a state-sanctioned, superior practice to all others, including medical science.  Abortion removes a major impetus for medical scientific discovery, because it is doing a much better job at eradicating disease and poverty by eliminating those that are diseased and/or poor (supposedly).  Has medical science cured 90% of all Down Syndrome children from ever walking on the earth?  I submit it has not.  Has it successfully removed from the American population 57 million individuals who would have come into the world diseased, poor, unwanted, or otherwise useless to society?  No to that too. Abortion has had numerically more success at its advertised aims than medicine, I believe (and not just in the U.S. but globally).  If we took seriously all the reasons in favor of abortion, we should come to realize that abortion alone is the solution to all afflictions (be they medical or social) that can be detected early enough.

At this point, many will want to argue with me saying that medical scientific discovery cannot be compared to abortion.  They will, hopefully, arrive at the conclusion that medical science seeks to cure the individual of disease, while abortion seeks to kill the individual with a disease.  This is a very important distinction that dismantles the notion that aborting babies who are diseased or might be born into a life with few material resources is a necessity and a right for the sake of the ones who are not being aborted.  If we want to respect the field of medical research and discovery properly, we cannot continue to accept the view of abortion as the solution to disease and poverty.  Abortion for reason of disease or poverty is a logical farce.

Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely "Shut Down"

Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - October 4, 2013

Obamacare and the Shut Down.  One of my media friends calls it a "#Shutnado," but really it has been more like the government passing gas this week.  At best not impressive.  At worst, offensive, and it stinks up a room.  All nonessential federal services were supposed to be shut down until the House Republicans agree to fully funding The Unaffordable Lack-of-Care and Patient Victimization Act as part of the Continuing Resolution to raise the government debt ceiling.  Where--what part of any of this sounds right to you?  I mean, if this is not a kind of political Greek Hell, I don't even know.  Even Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, is being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize for talking down our Nobel Peace Prize President from his warmongering stance against Syria!  I'm starting to think that those fluoridated water conspiracy theorists have something--that decades of drinking fluoridated water has lowered our IQs enough so that we think this craziness is just normal life, but we're really living in Greek Hell.  Maybe.  Just maybe.

But never fear, essential services are still being provided.  And by "essential," I mean--the Obama Administration means--essential, like guards and barricades at national parks and open-air memorials, White House executive chefs, Michelle Obama's remaining personal assistants (plural), and HHS programs meant for sterilizing American Indians who are part of the Navajo Nation. Yes, that's right.  CNS news reports that the Department of Health and Human Services has grants totalling $450,000 to "provide birth control--including "long acting" contraceptives and "sterilization"--in the Navajo Nation’s tribal lands."

Article:  "HHS Promoting 'Long-Acting Contraception, Sterilization, in Dwindling Navajo Nation"

$450,000--big deal, you say.  Well, if you aren't bothered by even $1 of your money being spent on the continuing and slow demise of not just one but several ethnic groups, maybe you'll appreciate that the shut down is shutting down NIH funding for cancer research and clinical drug trials, but the Shut Down is giving $455 million (yes, that's a thousand times more than for sterilizing Navajo Americans) to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  If you think those on the Left are at all tearful and would work to mitigate this, just ask Harry Reid.  Oh right, someone did ask leading him to blurt out his famous "Why would I want to do that?" line.  I swear, that is the most honest thing ever to come out of Harry Reid's mouth.  Yes, population control and narrative control--all very necessary and essential under the Obortion Administration.  So sorry for children suffering from cancer.  Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't realized it by now, this is the Emperor's fully armed and operational battle station.

This is not a shut down; it's a form of extortion.  But we've been here before.  Last time.  When the President threatened that seniors would not get their Social Security checks if Congress didn't approve of the last debt ceiling hike (erhm and Sequestration)!  This President has used people--used them as human shields--as a way of extorting our politicians into getting what he wants "100%," and he's still doing it.  I hear people, conservative Americans even, dismiss pro-life issues such as we talk about on this show as being irrelevant to the economics and policies that are really important to America.

Please, I'm begging you to wake up and realize that we are swimming in those issues everyday when we talk about economics and policy.  There is no separating what has been intertwined in public policy.  Pres. Obama was willing to use our senior citizens on Social Security as pawns in his political schemes then.  Now, his administration is halting research for cancer patients in favor of funding government media mouthpieces and moving  forward with funding for birth control and sterilization for already diminishing peoples.  And for what--to bankroll a health care system that is designed NOT to make sure everyone can get Congressional-style coverage (that claim was a joke from the beginning), but to be able to select out who the elites think is worthy of receiving care, just like they do in Canada and Europe.  In Belgium, they limit access to certain kinds of life-saving drugs and medical treatments but fully fund assisted suicide--don't think Obamacare won't do the same.  Instead of funding life-saving measures, Obamacare instead will fund abortion.  Isn't it nice to know that Grandma, who might not be able to get an operation to save her life, can get subsidized $9/month birth control pills and all the abortions she wants?  Fabulous.

And I'm going to keep saying it until it sinks in.  If what is considered "just a social issue" is not worth the time to seriously discuss, then why did a liberal like Democrat Wendy Davis spend 11 hours filibustering on the Texas Senate floor?  Why did she wear a freaking catheter--those things are painful as childbirth, I tell you.  So talking about it makes you uncomfortable--does it make you want to insert a catheter into your urinary tract to avoid it?...because Wendy Davis wore one for 11 hours so that she could shut down a bill about limiting abortion.  Don't tell me this is a sideline issue, because it sure isn't one for the Left. Obamacare proves it--the Shut Down proves it.  All conservatives need to come to grips with this fact.  It would be a relief to talk about abortion as a social issue one day--the day we stop making it legal, so then I can say "At least it's not legal."  But that day hasn't come.

"Shut Down" Like a Woman Scorned

Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - October 11, 2013

Aaand the Selective Shut Down continues. If you're like me, you're almost at the point of sick of hearing about it, except that something new happens everyday that is supposedly shutdown-related.  Truth be told, the Shut Down is a little farce--I don't mean the Shut Down itself is a farce, but a lot of what is being done in the name of shutting down the government is a farce.

Example:  you know the joke that was floating around about the government covering Mt. Rushmore with a giant sheet?  Yes, we all knew it is a joke the moment we heard it--apparently, though, Snopes.com thought it was such a thing that they published one of their debunks on it.  Ha!  Well, it is almost literally true.  Twitchy reports that police in the vicinity of Mt. Rushmore have put up cones on the road at points where Mt. Rushmore can be seen while driving.  The cones are placed there so that people cannot pull over and look at the monument.  Seriously!  The government is shut down, so as much money as it takes to shut down what normally requires little to no money whatsoever to experience is being spent to keep people from even seeing what is visible to everyone.  A mountain, for crying out loud.

But that's not all.  Yesterday, a story came out all over the place that an international tourist group was detained by armed park rangers at Yellowstone National Park, who--who--let me just read the story.

Article:  "Gestapo Tactics Meet Senior Citizens at Yellowstone"

Honestly, by the end of reading this story, I thought this was a hoax--that is how absurd this story sounds.  "No recreating!"?!?  Don't take photos of passing wildlife or go to the bathroom?  And they have guns on them to make sure you do what they say?  As absurd as it is, it is also very disconcerting.

But I've got one more.  In the name of "Shut Down," a jogger was fined $100 for jogging at Valley Forge National Historical Park.  Since when does "Shut Down" mean you can't go jogging in a public place?  Oh, and one more, one more:  private businesses that happen to be situated on federal property have been ordered inaccessible, and people living in their private homes that happen to be located on federal property have been kicked to the curb until further notice.

Folks, a government shutdown does not mean that federally public properties are to be made inaccessible...at the point of a gun.  We are in a shutdown, which means federal employees aren't working their jobs (certain federal employees), and buildings are closed, offices are closed, NOT open air parks blockaded like a passage out of North Korea and people's lives and businesses taken down by armed personnel. That is not a shutdown.  Meanwhile, the government is funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, opening the Washington Mall to a rally for illegal immigration, and purchasing mechanical bulls.  What shutdown?

For the last few days, I've been searching for the right word to describe this 'so not a shut down' brouhaha.  People have been saying that this is a temper tantrum from President Obama--yes, I think that's partly the case. People have said it is petty, spiteful...yes, I'll agree, but that still doesn't hit the nail on the head for me.  And then I got it.  Late at night, when all strokes of genius take place.  What is the word?  "Catty."  I know you're underwhelmed, but bear with me please.  This is the kind of thing many wives do (and all wives want to do) when they discover their husbands cheating on them.   This is about punishment and emotional retribution.  It is a catty reaction to not getting your way, and there is no shadow of doubt in my mind that how this "Shut Down" has been conducted was conceived in the mind of a woman. So as much as President Obama has to take the responsibility for screwing the American public like this, holding tourists hostage was not his idea -- at least not his alone.

On our doorstep--sex selective abortion is creeping into greater prominence in the Western world, and people are going to see the rubber meet the road.  In Australia, a doctor by the name of Mark Hobart is coming under fire from the Medical Board of Victoria for refusing to refer a couple to an abortionist when they expressed that they wanted to abort their baby girl.  According to the Australian Herald Sun News,

Under Victorian law, he was obliged to refer the patient to a doctor he knew would terminate the pregnancy.
But Dr Hobart doesn't know any doctor who would agree to abort a healthy baby for sex selection reasons.
"The general response from my colleagues is disbelief and revulsion," he said.
In any case, a referral is not necessary for an abortion. Hobart's patient independently procured the abortion a few days later. Neither she nor her husband made any complaint.

So the Medical Board is making an issue out of something that, legally, is not an issue.  I don't know how any government can compel doctors to refer people to others who will do something completely unethical. I mean, what if, in the name of being oneself, a doctor...here, I have a real example--a man wanted a dentist to remove all his teeth for no medically necessary purpose.  Now imagine if the law orders this doctor to refer this man to someone who would do that.  That's not only unethical, it's ridiculous.  The man can find some other dentist who would do it--you can find anyone to do anything under the right circumstances.  I mean, he could even find someone to do a "back alley teeth extraction" for him, if you know what I mean.

Safer If They Called the AFA "Jihadis"

There's a rebuttal out there to the accusation of being paranoid, and that it is not paranoia if somebody's really out to get you.  Effective as a "Strike two!" call in a baseball game is the newest reveal that the US Army is naming the American Family Association a domestic hate group akin to the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church.  And to make sure Army personnel didn't misunderstand, the briefing at which this became an issue included a presentation slide putting Fred Phelps' photo (complete with him holding up a poster that says "No Special Law for F***") on a slide labeled American Family Association.  The rationale?  The AFA is strongly pro-traditional marriage and opposed to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage.

Apparently, that position is all it takes to be labeled by the Army.

Ahem. When did the US Army get First Amendment rights?  I know for certain that individuals in the military have limited free speech rights on the condition of their service, so I would think that logically, our entire military has to curb its freedom to express an opinion that opposition to same-sex marriage is hate.  Speaking of free speech, it is an opinion that exceeds the purview of the military, because marriage is, as many conservative groups have argued, is just a social issue.  Hate is a social issue.  Violence and the threat to harm is not, and clearly the AFA is not an organization that engages or endorses any type of violence whatsoever.

This is a "Strike two!" occasion because, as Todd Starnes pointed out, this briefing by the Army is itself a dangerous hate move not unlike how the Family Research Council was also labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a potential target for a truly hateful fascist to attack, which then happened.  In fact, Army officers have come to see themselves as idealogues and the mechanism of the Army as a force for activism.

One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”
“When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.

The US Army has values?  And it is incumbent upon the American public to conform to those "Army Values?"  Call me hog-tied to the text (or paranoid!), but I'm certain that whatever Army Values exist are supposed to be reflective of the US Constitution which in no way acknowledges that one must campaign to "address concerns" of average American citizens that are "inconsistent with (so-called) Army Values."

So if the Army is going to fling open that door, then I'm not paranoid, and it's safe again to trod out Hitler references to things I find smack of fascism.  I ask that our government root out the Nazi dictator who compiled this briefing and jack him/her up for conspiracy to deprive the people of the AFA of their First Amendment rights and for putting them in potential physical harm.

Warning:  unlike baseball, there is no limit to the number of strikes anyone can make against Christian groups.

Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia...Don't Fall In Love.

And then it happened. 

Here's the story:  Married Couple Found to Be Twins Separated at Birth -- New Adoption Regulation Called For.

"In an incredibly rare twist of fate, a married couple in the UK have had their marriage annulled after discovering that they were in fact twins separated at birth. The pair apparently had no idea they were related, though felt an “inevitable attraction” that brought them together."

... 

“And if you don’t know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur.”

According to adoption officials in the UK, one of the biggest problems is the way in which human beings are naturally and instinctively drawn towards those they are similar to and share traits with. The west has a generally severe attitude toward incest which is considered abhorrent by most, but once the family tie is removed from the equation the attraction felt between related individuals can be completely overwhelming.

The fact that this particular case represents an extraordinary twist of fate is therefore considered irrelevant – adopted children must for their own wellbeing [sic] be made aware of their family trees.

Uh, YEAH.  Now, I can't fault the poor man for not having force powers to "sense" his own sister, but I can criticize this pomo idea that people don't have histories that need to be taken into account for.  If for nothing else than to prevent marrying your own twin sister, men and women of adoption need to know at the very least who their siblings are.

Yes, what happened to this brother and sister is exceedingly rare and not to be feared as a sign of an impending epidemic of accidental marriages to one's siblings.  Unless...

...in-vitro fertilization with anonymous sperm donation artificially increases the chances of these kinds of things happening.  Oh yes, it could happen again.  As my friend and president of the Center For Bioethics and Culture Network, Jennifer Lahl, has pointed out, how long until we see accidental romances (and/or marriages if not caught in time) with men and women born from sperm donation?  In her documentary "Anonymous Father's Day" you know this must be a pressing question especially among the single adults who were born from sperm donors.  It is not unusual for the same sperm donor to be the father of several dozen biological half-siblings.  All this to say that all this reproductive tech is, like, toadally awesome...until someone marries his sister.

Ah, so this story reminds me of a movie and a theme song America might have heard of once upon a time a galaxy far, far away.

"Join us, we know your sister;

Looks like you kissed her.

Don't fall in love."

Adult SCR - 80+++. ESCR - 000

US News &World Report just reported yet another potential success using adult-donated stem cells in research.  Adult stem cells have been induced with antigens to multiply and become neural-like cells, which researchers confirmed resemble mature brain cells.

From the story,

"The cells proliferated, but also started becoming long and thin and attaching to the bottom of the dish," which is reminiscent of behavior of neural cells, Jia Xie, a research associate on Lerner's team, said in a released statement. Further tests confirmed that they were neural progenitor cells, which are very similar to mature brain cells.

Good news on the ethical front.  As more and more successes are seen on the side of ASCR, the need and desire for ESCR becomes fainter and more irrelevant.  Of course, the scientific cannibalism of fetuses for their parts has never been ethically acceptable for those of us with problems with murder or that sort of thing.  With each ASCR success, perhaps scientists and politicians will decide not to give any more public funding to the legacy of Dr. Moreau.  But I'm not holding my breath yet.

Back to the "Super" 70s with Kermit Gosnell

Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - April 19, 2013
Part 2

Onto other news on life and death, Jill Stanek wrote a superb bit of history on the now infamous Kermit Gosnell earlier this week. If you haven't heard of Gosnell, I don't entirely blame you. It's not your fault if all you listen to is ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. But, it is your fault if you don't listen to Pro-Life Fridays Radio, because we have been talking about the baby neck-snipping abortionist from Philedelphia since 2012. Well, little do people know that Kermit Gosnell has been killing babies and harming women for longer than the two decades that have been in focus of late. In 1972, before Roe v. Wade, Gosnell participated in a "study," along with a "doctor" by the name of Harvey Karman, sponsored by Planned Parenthood, in which Karman tried to teach a group of doctors in Bangladesh how to perform abortions. Later that year, Karman and Gosnell would work together again, this time inside Gosnell's abortion mill in Philedelphia. 15 young, minority women of limited financial means (poor, black women) were bussed from Chicago to Philly to undergo essentially the same experiment. What was it? Harvey Karman used these women to test his newfangled, wave-of-the-future, nearly hands-free abortion device he invented and cleverly named the "super coil." What's that, you ask? Former Gosnell employee Randy Hutchins testified for the Grand Jury Report on Gosnell, and the report says,


(I'll read the second paragraph before the first)

The problem was that they never tested it. They didn’t test it on any animals. They never did any – any – any other human trials. This was not something that was sanctioned by the FDA. This was just something that he decided – he and this guy decided they were going to use on these women."

(and now the first)

"[T]here was a device that he and a psychologist [Karman] were working on that was supposed to be plastic – basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. All right. They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, it would then – the gel would melt and these 97 things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus, and the fetus would be expelled.

I want everyone to just take a moment to think about what could possibly happen when 97 spring-loaded razor blades are introduced into a pregnant woman's uterus. I'm tempted to give you more than a moment, because apparently it didn't occur to Gosnell or Karman that anything, I dunno, BLOODY could happen, and since they're the doctors, they should know better, right?

Oh wait, did I mention that I put "doctor" in air quotes? I did. Dr. Karman did not have a medical license. In fact, he didn't even go to medical school. In fact in the 1950s, he was considered a convicted felon, having spent time in prison for killing a woman while giving her an abortion in a California hotel room using a nutcracker...until Gov. Jerry Brown pardoned dear Harvey. Harvey Karman simply attached the letters Ph.D to his name, somehow I assume associated with a diploma he obtained from a Swiss degree mill.

But back to our man Gosnell, who Karman enlisted to insert these brilliant super coils into. He was never charged with anything, even though nine of the 15 women suffered severe injuries, which included punctured uteruses, hemorrhages, infections, and retained fetal remains. Hm, who would have thought? If you'd like to know more about this experiment, and I hope we all do, Jill Stanek has provided us with search terms that could be useful, and those words are "Mother's Day Massacre, 1972." The media dubbed it that name, just so you know, not Jill and not us.

David Sirota Gets His Wish for a White Bomber

Pro-Life Fridays Radio Monologue - April 19, 2013
Part 1

I'm going to take a minute to congratulate David Sirota on his wish that the Boston marathon bomber was a "White American." He got the "white," or nearly-white part, correct. I hope he feels good about that. I really do. But I have to say, though, that his dream of having a white, American bomber was already realized in 1969 in the man who would help launch Barack Obama's political career, Bill Ayers. It was also realized in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh exploded a bomb in Oklahoma City. What's missing in Sirota's half-empty glass at this point is saying how many white Americans he would like to see become bombers and whether or not he would be willing to become one of those white American bombers, since he apparently desires so much after them.

Ah, someone on Facebook apparently took issue with me about talking about the bombing today, asking how we can be talking about the reasons for the bombing when no suspect has been caught yet. Well, I didn't announce that we were going to be discussing reasons for the bombing, but that setting off bombs with the intent and knowledge to maim and murder people is a pro-life issue. I don't know--is that really a tough one? But I will tell you that I'll do this, and that's talk about the reasons why it wasn't a bombing by conservative Tea Party people on Tax Day. April 15th is "Tax Day" like President's Day is every president's birthday. April 15th is the last day you have to file your taxes; it's a deadline (gasp, did I just say "dead?"). April 15th is DEAD DAY, not Tax Day!!! Augh, caught me... A second reason why the Boston bombing isn't a bombing by conservative Tea Party people is that no guns were used. Everyone knows conservatives love and cling to their guns and religion, not bombs. Third reason, everyone knows Tea Partiers are racists, and no black people were killed in the bombing! So there. you. go.

Incidentally, April 15th is Israel's national Memorial Day for victims of terrorism. Just sayin'.

Ann Coulter Says "Don't Blame Romney"

I don't!  I blame Ann Coulter.

I'm going to give just a tiny bit to Ann Coulter and say that I get it. I do, because I once held her self-proclaimed non-idiot position before I became a "pro-life badass" myself. Having stated that, my compliments stop there. See, for all the sharp-eyed political optics Coulter has (and she's got specs for sure), she and many of the GOP self-aggrandizers have one big, black hell-hole of a blind spot when it comes to the issue of abortion, and that is they become useful idiots of the Left.

The first mistake when it comes to the issue of the rape-conceived person is to pit the unborn child against her mother. The Left loves to divide and conquer along lines that should naturally constitute a bond between two equally important people in this world. By conceding the position that two lives cannot coexist just because the Left says that the one life smaller in size should only exist by the consent of the larger (and not the other way around, curiously enough), plays into the elitist trick that their narrative is the only narrative to which we should all prostrate ourselves. I'd like to know why anyone should hog tie himself at the feet of the Legion of Doom. Only the pro-death Left spins the issue into "requir[ing] a woman to bear the child of her rapist" instead of giving justice to every innocent victim of rape, born and unborn.

The second mistake is to blame GOP candidates for saying what they believe. Nowhere in the manufactured debacles of Akin and Mourdock did either of them say that the reason they were running for office was to fictionalize rape or pass legislation prohibiting abortion under any circumstance. Both men answered the obligatory pro-life questions (asked only to Republicans) by stating their positions, nothing more. It was the Left (again!) who responded in predictable fashion with the microphone that they command (only because the GOP is out looking for a spine), practically telling the public that Akin thinks rape is no big deal, and Mourdock is personally going to hold a baby in a mother's womb to prevent her from aborting. Somehow, these GOP talking heads capitulate to the straw men that the Left likes to contruct for target practice, and they all too willingly run out before the first shot to sink a hatchet into the backs of perfectly good candidates, because God forbid the other party should have to prove its accusations.

Since the finger-pointing has begun in the wake of Mitt Romney's disappointing loss, GOP bigwigs should be ready to take it as well as they can dish it out. From where I and my "badass" pro-life compatriots stand, it's mouthpieces like Coulter, Priebus, Rove, and Perino who became the Lucy to Charlie Brown and pulled the ball away just as our duly elected primary winners were about to kick. They fell, naturally, but spare us the schlepped up line that they were toxic players who poisoned the presidential race as well. Puleez.

For all the complaining about how the other party get stuff wrong all the time, the biggest favor Coulter could do for Republicans now is to quit being the unhappy lap dog of the Left when it comes to the pro-life issue of which she admittedly has a 100% flight risk for only a 1% disagreement. If the talking heads spent half as much time focused on winning seats instead of getting distracted by Obama's "lady parts," the Senate could have well been a lot closer to getting flipped today. Anyone can take losing an election if it's one step forward at a time. But there is no consolation for losing when the Party one belongs to actively pushes candidates two steps back and spits on them.

(This is a response to Ann Coulter's post-2012 Election blogpost blaming Senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock for causing Mitt Romney to lose the Presidential race.)

Abortion's "Sermon on the Operating Table"

The Visible Conservative:  Christians Unleashed Show
Pro-Life Fridays Monologue - March 16, 2012

For the longest time, I’ve questioned how abortion is sold to the American woman as a “difficult but necessary choice” that women need. Pro-death propagandists sell not the abortion itself (that’s the job of Planned Parenthood) but the right and the so-called need for abortion. This is where, on a certain level, I give credit to Jessica DelBalzo for having the balls to be honest.


In her article called “I Love Abortion,” she points out the problem with standard pro-abortion rhetoric that pro-life people have similarly called pro-deathers out on for a long time now. The Clintonian formula, as I call it, of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare” has always been a point of contention, because if abortion is made safe and legal, why should it ever be made rare?  DelBalzo bites the bullet and says that she doesn’t like how abortion supporters softpedal abortion and assume just what we pro-lifers have said all along that there is something wrong with abortion on demand.

She says,

Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide…. there is no need to suggest that abortion be rare. To say so implies a value judgement, promoting the idea that abortion is somehow distasteful or immoral and should be avoided…. we must remember that extenuating circumstances like health, contraceptive failure, and rape mean that abortion will always be a normal, necessary, and reasonable choice for many women. As such, we must avoid stigmatizing it in any way. No woman benefits from even the vaguest insinuation that abortion is an immoral or objectionable option. That's the weak argument made by misogynistic, forced-birth advocates, and it has no place in a dialogue about reproductive freedom. Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one…. Suggesting that abortion be “safe, legal, and rare,” and crowing that “no one likes abortion,” accomplishes nothing for women's rights. Pandering to the anti-choice movement by implying that we all find termination distasteful only fuels the fire against it. What good is common ground if it must be achieved at the expense of women who have had or will have abortions? Those women need advocates like us more than we need support from anti-abortionists. Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What's not to love?

I appreciate this woman’s consistency, but she has done something not even Hillary Clinton was willing to do when she uttered “safe, legal, and rare.” DelBalzo has killed the last vestiges of humanity in the dialogue about whether mothers have a right to kill their children in the womb. In the article she talks about abortion as similar to getting a mammogram or chemotherapy, which, I guess she means are all equivalent to each other (except that all other medical procedures in the world don’t end the life of a living, growing human being or even have the intent to harm or kill another human being).

DelBalzo and others who think like her fail to realize that the mindset she’s promoting is exactly the same mindset behind the gladiatorial games in ancient Rome, Tuol Sleng and the killing fields of Cambodia, and the African slave trade. It is a mindset that says some people have a right by some virtue of superiority to oppress, dismember, and execute human beings for the sake of political ideology, religion, economic gain, or entertainment. Just think what made all these atrocities possible—the idea that there are classes among men, gradations of worth, and rights of some that trump the rights of others either by power or diminishing the humanity of those they have power over. Women are property in most of the Islamic world; slaves are property; political adversaries don’t have the right to have a conflicting opinion, and yes, all this is the mindset of liberals that preach tolerance, compassion, and diversity in society. It amazes me how their heads don’t explode! The inhumanity and cruelty of the pro-death position is breathtaking.

For all the ranting about how religious people are misogynistic, I’ve never known a position as misogynistic as pro-death. It’s right up there with Sharia Law. In order to be pro-abortion, you must look at women as nothing but uteruses with arms and legs. No kidding. It says that a woman is not equal in society unless she gets a specific type of on-demand surgery in her uterus. What kind of message is that for women? Do I tell my daughter that at some point early in her life she wasn’t a person with intrinsic rights and that she wouldn’t have intrinsic rights now if abortion weren’t legal? Well, yeah. DelBalzo is really saying that women have to be given our rights from government, which is saying we don’t really have any rights to begin with.

And let me just say one more thing, especially in light of her line about America being “plagued by anti-feminist, religious conservatism” that shames women’s sexuality. When you say that you venerate abortion wholeheartedly, is this not an admission of devotion of a religious caliber to a death cult known as ultra-liberal feminism that demeans and devalues motherhood and children and looks at pregnancy as some kind of STD? Who’s religious now?

Ouroboros: "Hate Speech" Worse Than Infanticide?

On Monday morning, this blogpost dropped into my facebook News Feed from Wesley J. Smith. Titled “Killing Baby ‘Non-persons’ -- All Grist for the Bioethics Mill,” he had me intrigued, because I am very used to Smith picking up on the latest bioethical movements from the bowels of medical (un)ethicists from around the globe, signifying what kind of world I must prepare myself and my children to face in the coming years. He reports the latest chilling abstract in the Journal of Medical (Un)Ethics calling for the medical community (and I imagine society at large) to give wholesale acceptance of infanticide “after-birth abortion” of any infant, er..after..birth. Strike that strike; it is infanticide.

The abstract says:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

In the last 48 hours since this idea hit the online world, there has thankfully been a public outcry of horror and indignation at this trident of death. But before I could put words down to express my own rejection of infanticide, this is what got excreted out onto the world next: the journal editor’s defense of the authors’ approval of infanticide. ‘So what’s the big deal?’ Savulescu seems to ask. He cites that under certain circumstances, infanticide is already legal in the giant cemetery plot of land known as the Netherlands.

The logic of the article is consistent, he says, which goes something like: There is no meaningful distinction between fetuses and infants. If we do not assign moral value to fetuses in the womb, then we should not assign moral value to infants either. Therefore, killing infants (infanticide) is morally indistinct from killing fetuses (abortion). The logic is correct. But Savulescu, Giublini, and Minerva are very wrong. The metaphysics and ontology of a human being encompasses all stages of life—the “who” of a human person never changes from the moment of conception. Therefore, if moral value exists at all, it must exist at the beginning of life in order to have any real meaning thereafter. Killing fetuses and infants is a moral travesty.

The endgame of such a philosophy of death is a right to murder and a right to be murdered--not much different than stripping down to your skivvies and living the rest of your life in the Peruvian rainforest just fighting to survive each day. Civilization, laws, and abiding by the reality of objective moral values are the difference between a truly progressive society and barbarism. It is the reason Susan Smith is serving a life sentence in prison. If Savulescu, Guiblini, and Minerva preach the worldview worth actualizing, we ought to exonerate Susan Smith, laud her the title “Superfrau,” and give her another car to drown more toddlers in a lake, because medical (un)ethicists have decided that there are no reasons despicable enough from which to save their lives.

But it gets better! Liberal is as liberal does, Momma always said. The main reason why Savulescu decided to stick up for his colleagues is not found in the substance of what they wrote but in the way he perceives they were treated on blogs! [Cough] If I knew at the beginning it was this easy to take his family jewels and put them in a thimble, I wouldn’t have bothered reading his defense. So, he reprints and rails against some unflattering ‘misspellings’ of Giublini and Minerva’s names and some visceral adjectives having to do with political progressivism, sprinkled with a few colorful expletives. Then, he sings the song of classic liberal indignation. “Racist!” “Hate speech!” he croons. Sadly for him, Savulescu has argued his way into a lonely solo. Such throaty whine is the symptom of a permanent laryngitis. He sang away his right to moral outrage the moment he believed it is permissible to kill the innocent among us.

My outlook on the human future teeters on the last vestiges of civilization’s ability to recognize objective moral transgressions when it encounters them. With our culture swimming and reveling in the culture of death, I wonder how enterprises such as the efforts to end sex trafficking and slavery will ever gain a moral foothold in any meaningful way. Sure, we are rightfully appalled by the utter depravity of infanticide, but for how long? As Peter Singer slowly becomes a household name, will his ideas also become household ideas? It has happened in a radically relativized society before, somewhere in the neighborhood of Germany in the 1930s. Our postmodern culture parades about like a Caesar, thinking it has conquered the darkness of objectivity for the light of self-directed moralism. All I can say is "beware the Ides of March." Not even Hitler (or even Singer!) would kill his own mother, yet taken to the logical end, these medical (un)ethics mean the death of many mothers and babies, including their own.

Ouroboros.

Playing the Race Rape Card

The Visible Conservative:  Christians Unleashed show
Pro-Life Friday Monologue - February 24, 2012

This week we saw the latest example of how the pro-abort community can only tell lies and make moot arguments about pro-life legislation that threatens to take away all their tools of ignorance. The Virginia state legislature is (or maybe was) about ready to pass a bill that requires women seeking abortions to obtain an ultrasound signed off by a doctor prior to getting an abortion.  And up until Tuesday, the Governor of VA, Bob McDonnell, was going to sign it. That is, until pro-deathers like Dahlia Lithwick started telling the public that ultrasounds are the equivalent of rape.

Honestly, that is the last gasp of a dying argument right there. The type of ultrasound that she is referring to is the kind that is done with an internal probe used for accurately viewing a baby in the womb early on his/her development, as early as 4 1/2 to 5 weeks. This is where Dahlia Lithwick is sounding off about rape--that this procedure is done internally through the vagina. This is a canard like no other. The Bill does not mandate this particular method of ultrasound, so if a woman does not want the transvaginal ultrasound, she doesn't have to have that one.

What is mandated is that a woman have an ultrasound. Period. If the pregnancy is too early, before 4 1/2 weeks, no method of ultrasound tech will give a proper reading. And if she chooses not to have a TVU, all a woman has to do is wait.

Of course, this is where it gets difficult for the pro-deathers to hold their ground, because waiting only means a greater the risk of complications when aborting. That is why abortionists want the best information possible before performing an abortion -- they want to know accurate gestational age, size, and location within the womb. And in order to do that, they need to do an ultrasound.  Redstate.com reports that Commentary Magazine called up the Virginia League of Planned Parenthood's abortion hotline and received this following recording:

“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.


Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

So.....women who want abortions from Planned Parenthood in Virginia get one, possibly two, ultrasounds anyway? Please, just take a moment to let the realization of a sweet little lie wash over you. A VA bill that mandates that women obtain an ultrasound that they are going to have anyway is called rape on account of a method of ultrasound they don't have to get?  Read the Bill.  It's not in there!  Like I said, women can have the transabdominal ultrasound done if they don't want the transvaginal ultrasound; if they are too early in their pregancies, all they have to do is wait. 

This argument that having a TVU is comitting rape is dumber than a bag of hammers. Ms. Lithwick isn't crying rape to try and help women; the pro-death industry wants pregnant women and the public to remain ignorant so that they can continue to make irrelevant arguments like hers.

Let me round this out by pointing out that the lying itself is not the sad part--all I did was expose the lie of Dahlia Lithwick. The sad part is that lying worked and is muddying the waters of a fairly straightforward bill. The pro-abortion industry got all wee-wee'd up calling something rape that isn't rape. And now, Gov. Bob McDonnell, who was supporting this bill, has now as of Wednesday pulled his endorsement and seems to be bowing to the dragonhead of personal political gain, maybe! The speculation is that McDonnell is on Mitt Romney's short list for VP picks, and you know how politicians hate to let the truth get in the way of stepping up in the world. On the Governor's website, you can find his statement calling to amend the bill to state explicitly that doctors may not rape pregnant women with ultrasound machines...seriously!  This is a totally unecessary delay of what should be a slam dunk for the state of Virginia.  As Redstate.com is correct to point out, VA is looking like it will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  You can call Gov. McDonnell at (804) 786-2211.

Rape is a feeling...

The Visible Conservative:  Christians Unleashed show
Pro-Life Friday Monologue - February 17, 2012

I've read and listened to many people say that abortion should be kept legal in the case of rape or incest. About just as many say that abortion should be kept legal for everybody because some women who become pregnant through rape might want to abort.

The beginning of new life is a biological event. The body of a rapist does not know it is committing rape. Psychologists tell us that rape is not about sex, it's about power. Rape, therefore, isn't about the body, it is an intent [of the mind]--an intent to harm.

The body of a woman does not know what rape is--it is the mind and emotions of the woman that determines whether a sexual encounter is consensual or rape. Rape, therefore, is the violation of the mind by using the body.

The body of a child that is conceived does not know it is conceived through rape. Her life began through the union of an egg and sperm, just like any other life that is conceived. Rape, therefore, has no bearing on the life that begins.

So it makes little sense for people to argue about women's bodies and fetuses. What people are arguing about is how to deal with the tragedy, the emotions surrounding an event, and the injustice of abuse. Tragedy, emotions, injustice--that is what rape is, and they are all abstract objects. You can't touch them; you can't destroy them; you can't see them with your eyes. So how does rape--an act of intent on the mind that results in tragedy and injustice and creates a life that doesn't know how she got there--how does rape justify an abortion, which must violate a woman's body a second time to violate the body of a child in the womb to a bodily death? That does not follow.

Rape is an intent, a feeling that is given and received wholly in the mind. The woman's body is an object to a rapist, no different than a womanizer or an abusive boyfriend (and to tell you the truth, there is no real difference between all of them). A woman is an object to harm that leads to the real harm, which is in the mind. Rape is a feeling, so how does aborting a child from rape take away anything about the rape itself? This whole argument that women have the right to abort a child if they are raped rests on nothing but feelings: perceived resentment toward the child and the horror of carrying the rapist's child. Let me tell you something--resentment and horror are feelings. I'm fully compassionate and understanding about resentment and horror. But how compassion leads to death is more horror, and we should be above that as a civilized, enlightened, caring society.

I've said this before, there is no substantive difference between a child conceived unintentionally in consensual sex and one conceived in rape. The only difference I can see is on the faces of the adults talking about it. A child conceived through rape is only by degrees more unwanted compared to a child that is conceived by a woman and her boyfriend, one-night stand, or whatever. So don't tell me, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, or Women's Media Center...don't tell me there's a meaningful difference between two children in their mother's wombs. That difference exists only in your perception--it exists inside your small, limited minds. Christians are not limited by your definitions of life. It's Christian values that, to be honest, talk about the essential rights of women. You don't get to define my rights; my rights in this world come from God, and so do yours. Remember that the next time you turn your nose up at a child conceived because her mother was raped.  Don't forget to take a quick look at your face in the mirror while you're at it. 'Cause there's the problem right there..in the mirror. Not in the womb.

Ouroboros: Sea Turtle Fetuses > Human Fetuses?

If we can protect sea turtle fetuses from being killed by humans, why can't we protect human fetuses from being killed by humans also?

Westboro Strikes St. Louis Metro Again

I wonder how this group gets around the country so fluidly.  They seem to have no other purpose in life than to protest people out of the blue, people they don't even know.  They are like the college mall preachers I used to encounter in school, and they're just as caustic.

Now you'll see something you will hardly ever see self-styled peaceful Muslims do to the belligerent Muslims: go out and rebuke them, denounce them, and disown them. I have done this to Westboro myself before, and now I get to do it again.

Westboro is neither Baptist nor a church. I should know 'cause I've been, and still am, both Baptist and attend a church. But that's not imortant. What is important is that they neither know Jesus nor know what He loves or doesn't love. These pitiful souls have become that which they hate, which is the sure sign they have no Jesus in them at all. There is no love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control with these folks. Degrading people, rather than criticizing their ideas and actions, disrespects the image of God that everyone is created in. As a follower of Jesus, I believe in dealing harshly with sin and injustice (while first recognizing my own sin and sin-potential) but I cannot eclipse the worth and basic humanity of the sinner through insults and put-downs.

Westboro, you've been a naughty bunch. May each of your tortured souls find the real Jesus who will put an end to your God-forsaken pickets.

On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade - January 22

The Visible Conservative: Christians Unleashed show
Pro-Life Fridays - January 20, 2012

Jan. 22 marks the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. In a 7-2 vote, seven judges ruled to strip equal rights and equal protection for all persons living and growing inside their mothers's wombs. This decision was not rendered for any reasons that most pro-abortion supporters give today. This was not done in the name of medical need. This was not done for as a legal response to things like rape or incest. This was not done to "save" women from dangerous back-alley abortions (which, by the way, is still happening. The only difference now is that it is so much harder to prosecute a back-alley aborionist today because what he is doing is now legal). This was not done even for the excuse of not bringing an inconvenient baby into the world.

No, this decision was made on the basis of a concocted right of a woman to privacy. Under the rule of "privacy," no one is supposed to prohibit what a woman does in the "privacy" of her own domain, which we are to guess means her body. Of course, reasoning like this makes no sense, especially coming from the highest court and the biggest brains in the nation. If you read the Constitution, the 14th Amendment in particular, there is no right to privacy stated or outlined there for pregnant women or for any woman or for anyone. The Justices took creative license to the Constitution to produce such a thing as privacy just so they can make abortion fit into their artificial interpretation. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a big abortion supporter, agrees that though she believes abortion should be legal, Roe v. Wade was decided in the wrong manner in 1973.

Of course, every abortion that takes place in America today is legalized by Roe v. Wade. To overturn Roe and go back to the drawing board, as it were, would immediately restore the ability of each individual state to make legislation on the issue. The states that had laws banning abortion would automatically have those laws restored while a new effort to legalize it on the federal level would have to take place from the ground up.

But as we know, pro-abortionists, even the ones who disagree with how Roe was decided, would never support overturning it. Why? To go back to the drawing board and build a case for federal legalized abortion would take probably decades in Congress and would certainly lose when all has been said and done. The principle of arguing one's case in the Legislature is conveniently bypassed through keeping Roe just the way it is. It would be just too hard to accomplish it doing it the right way.

So here is my observation. Legalized abortion in the US is built on two things and two things only: legal fiction and expediency.

Pro-abortionists should know that the Court did not consider all the common excuses for legalized abortion as material in their decision. If the Court did not make the usual arguments for legal abortion in its decision, but instead made the 14th Amendment overreach its boundaries and now keeps it there through politics, what does that tell you about the strength of pro-abortion arguments?

It tells me that the only real reason that abortion is still legal in this country is that people in power want it that way. As a result, every baby born today does not have intrinsic rights. Every baby is alive only because someone else didn't want it to be killed. Everybody alive since 1973 is alive today not on the basis of our own intrinsic right to life, equal rights, or equal protection. Beware. Just as it was so easy to strip equal rights and equal protection from those in the womb, it will be just as easy to strip them from those that are outside the womb. It has happened before, it is happening now, and there is a good chance it will happen again. The African-American community in America should be keenly aware of this fact. When one member of the human species has no intrinsic rights, then none of us do.