Sister Jane, Cowardly Clergy and Martin Niemoller Moments

79623

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel is the latest victim of the group-think, all-things-homosexual movement. Her oppressor isn’t an amoral corporation. It’s the Catholic Church.

Sister Jane gave an hour-long presentation to students at Charlotte Catholic High School in North Carolina titled “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift”

Sister Jane is a member of the Dominican Sisters of Cecilia, which is known for its fidelity to the Magisterium. She has a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Her presentation was based on a series of instructional videos created for Aquinas College in Nashville, where she is an associate professor.

The resulting uproar caused by this faithful Catholic nun faithfully teaching Catholic morality to a group of high school students in a Catholic High School immediately moved from disagreement to nasty confrontation.

In a meeting with “outraged” parents, the Rev Matthew Kauth, the school chaplain, apologized to parents and promised that the high school would develop “new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future.”

Now, Sister Jane is “taking a sabbatical from teaching and canceling her other speaking engagements.”

After the fold-up of the Catholic Bishops in England, when they were scolded by a powerful British politician, I began to wonder exactly what’s with this all-male priesthood of ours. The craven behavior of the English bishops raised the question, at least in my mind, as to who is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church; the bishops or powerful politicians.

The situations in both Seattle and North Carolina make me wonder if the new teaching authority resides in angry mobs with tuition money.

Why are we bothering with an all-male priesthood, if the priests and bishops won’t act like men?

We. Need. Leadership.

We already have all the examples of collusion, running away, (what we call “crawfishing” here in Okieland) and back stabbing that anyone could want.

What those of us in the pews would like to see is active examples of manly defense of the Gospels and the Church by stand-up men of the cloth.

Scape-goating a nun during Lent, when we are remembering the sacrifice made by the Ultimate Scapegoat when He died on Calvary, is perhaps more apt than the boys in collars really want to be.

Are the men in our all-male priesthood men enough for these times? Are they men enough to pay the price of real leadership in ugly times when the Church is attacked, or are they going to sell the Gospels down the drain?

In politics, we have a saying, “I have your back.” That means that you are dealing with someone who will watch and not allow you to be blindsided; someone who will stick with you when things get dicey.

I have often criticized my fellow elected officials for certain behaviors, but I can tell you that I have not seen such a case of obvious cowardice as this from any elected official I ever served with.

The priests and the bishop put Sister Jane out on the ice and let the bears have her. How inspiring for the rest of us.

Why did they tuck tail and run away?

I don’t know.

Anyone can see that when the bears get through with her, they’re still going to turn and attack the boys in black. The only way to delay that is if they do sell out the Gospels, which, based on the comments by the school chaplain, is exactly what they plan to do.

Of course, the problem with that is that a lot of the rest of us aren’t going to trust them or follow them later, when they might need us; like when those bears come for them.

This was a Martin Niemoller moment. And they blew it.

When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers.
Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians – “should I be my brother’s keeper?”
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. – I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? — Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren’t guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers
I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. From Wikipedia.

 

For more information, check out Deacon Greg Kandra, Katrina Fernandez, Jennifer Fitz, and Get Religion.

Shame on Everybody: Michigan Senate Race Debate Over Abortion

Protest

Shame on everybody.

I would love to single out one of the mud-slingers and propagandizers in this little set-to and say “Fie on you!” But I can’t. So, I guess I’ll just say “Fie on everybody!” and be done with it.

United States Congressman Gary Peters is running for the United States Senate in Michigan. He evidently drug his kids into a debate over an abortion law, saying that as the father of daughters

… I struggle with how to tell them that the state we love and where our family has been for generations is now unfairly discriminating against them and makes health care less affordable.

I understand why this comment would raise the ire of anyone reading it. What kind of man drags his own kids into something this ugly? And what a schlocky way to do it.

Thankfully, the other fine folks in Michigan didn’t attack the daughters directly. But their reply comes close to matching the Congressman’s for sheer jerkiness. According to the pro life people of Michigan, Congressman Peters “wants to make sure abortion is accessible and cheap for his daughters.”

Maybe the harsh winter has frozen their brains up in Michigan. Can anyone in that state talk about important issues without getting down in the pits? I can think of a lot of ways to defend Michigan’s pro life laws, all of them based on principle and a call to higher orders of thinking. I could also, if I wanted, defend a position in opposition to such laws without ever once painting a target on my kids.

ThinkProgressive, which reported this story, added the cherry on top with its painfully biased reporting. Here’s how the reporter who wrote the story described the law in question:

The statement comes in response to a controversial new abortion restriction in Michigan that took effect earlier this month. Women who buy health insurance in Obamacare’s private market are now barred from purchasing a plan that includes abortion coverage, even if they want to end a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest. They’ll be required to purchase a separate rider if they want an abortion procedure to be covered, which has led reproductive rights supporters to decry the measure as a rape insurance law.

I haven’t read the Michigan law, but there are a number of similar laws around the country. I am assuming that all this one does is not allow health insurance plans to pay for abortions. If someone wants to have abortion coverage in their insurance, then all they have to do is buy a rider providing it. I doubt very much that the questions of rape and incest enter into it.

I’m guessing that the Michigan pro abortion people couldn’t come up with an intelligent way to oppose this law, so they decided to claim that it is somehow aimed at victims of rape and incest. In my humble opinion, this line argument exploits rape and incest victims.

Evidently, a Michigan legislator joined the fray by talking about her own sexual assault in a speech. I’ve watched bits of the debate on this bill, and what I saw was a deliberate mis-characterization of the law in order to exploit women and girls who have suffered these horrible crimes against their humanity. I honestly regard it as a kind of social rape to do this to women.

I could really go off into a rant here, as the subject of violence against women always gets me going. I feel sorry for the legislator who talked about her own sexual assault in this manner. But, as I said, the bill does not address that issue. Conflating it with that issue is propaganda and exploitation of women who have suffered the dehumanizing effects of sexual assault.

I am also sick to the core of hearing people claim that abortion is the answer to rape. Abortion hides rape and lets the rapist off the hook. Abortion is, in a very real way, an accommodation to rape. It is disgusting to me that our idea of “helping” rape victims is to give them the option of adding the murder of their own child to what has already happened to them.

As I said in another post when I quoted a line from Rob Roy, it’s not the child that needs killing. I said this, even though I am opposed to the death penalty, because I want to make it clear who is at fault here: It is the rapist. We need to stop sexualizing and degrading women in our culture, and we also need to put these guys away and never let them out again.

I could say more, but I’m going to stop.

As for the fine folks in Michigan who, on both sides, have taken this debate about the value of human life and the humanity of women down in the basement: Shame on all of you.

How to Present the Christian Message When the Message is the Medium

Worldevangelization

The media is hard-selling abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and now polygamy and polyamory. It is also pushing farming women’s bodies for eggs and using women as pregnancy surrogates.

That is the real-world situation. We need to be aware of it. We need to do what we can to make other Christians aware of it, so that they see it for what it is. But what, beyond that, should we do?

We must learn how to communicate our message in today’s world. We can, you know. We’ve just got to stop bemoaning the situation and start thinking about what we can do.

This video gives a brief discussion of how Christianity has historically communicated its message. That’s a good place to start as we move forward to how we will communicate it in today’s world.

YouTube Preview Image

My Five Wives: The Push to Normalize, and then Legalize, Polygamy is On

Divorce

First it was Big Love and its top tier talent. Then it was Sister Wives.

Now, we’ve got My Five Wives from TLC.

The commentary that I’ve seen on this show so far has been unalloyed promotion of polygamy. There are no complicating questions or even allusions to hint at a darker side of the misogynist practice of polygamy. It’s sell job, flat out.

I also haven’t heard a nay-saying word from the sisters in the feminist tier. All is silent on the feminist front as the mainlining of uncritical acceptance of polygamy to the American public moves forward.

The polygamous My Five Wives is being hyped as “about love” and “freedom” and, well, as normal and attractive as apple pie and Fourth of July fireworks.

We are treated to beautiful white bread kids with million dollar smiles, lisping “we just love one another,” while the American-Girl-grown-up wives assure us that this is just another alternative lifestyle. There is, if they are to believed, no misogyny roiling beneath this unctuous elevation of polygamy to a new norm, and certainly no sick or destructive agenda.

Remember a few eye blinks of time ago when anyone who said that redefining marriage to allow two men or two women to “marry” would lead to polygamy was called an idiot/bigot/homophobe/hater?

Now, it seems that anyone who dares to say a critical word about polygamy is an idiot/bigot/hater. I’ve got the insults in my delete file to prove it.

Meanwhile, those earlier idiot/bigot/homophobe/haters who said that redefining marriage would open the gates to who knows what — including polygamy — are looking more and more like prophets.

The legalization of gay marriage is still moving and the sell job on polygamy is already well along.

You do remember how this works, don’t you?

These entertainment series are a softening-up process that the media pus the American people through. This process makes the case that polygamists lead Ozzie and Harriet lives, and objections to polygamy are all in the minds and mouths of narrow-minded and backward-looking Christian zealots. There is, of course, no corresponding “case” from the other side of the question allowed. It all goes one way, and it the drum beat in favor of gay marriage and now polygamy never stops or slows.

The arguments that the “stars” of My Five Wives make in interviews fit the template we’ve had used on us before.

We’re “normal times five” they tell us. The man and his harem are not looking backwards to some old-school polygamy. Not at all. They consider themselves “progressive” and “independent.” Rather than being part of an evil right-wing religious sect, they are “spiritually driven.”

“We want to dispel all those, you know, myths about rumors about polygamist families,” they tell us. “We’re healthy, our kids are amazing, you know, and good citizens, good students, and you know, we’ve got a good family.”

Or, as it says on the TLC website, “love keeps us grounded.”

They are, in short, Ozzie and Harriet on steroids; the next new normal in cultural implosion of post Christian America.

From the Mail Online:

Just because he has five wives and 24 children doesn’t mean Brady Williams isn’t normal.


Or at least that’s the message he wanted America to receive during an interview with the Huffington Post in which the polygamist stars of TLC’s ‘My Five Wives’ spoke candidly about hopes to dispel the myths surrounding their unconventional lifestyle. 


‘All of America’s having sex,’ Brady said. ‘And it’s no big deal to just answer it and to just say ‘Duh no we’re not perverted, we’re not twisted, we’re just normal.’

‘Normal times five.’

The family, which belongs to no church, considers itself progressive and independent.

Williams and his wives slowly withdrew from the fundamentalist Mormon church in their rural community outside of Salt Lake City during the mid-2000s after re-evaluating their core beliefs.

The family no longer teaches the tenets of fundamental Mormonism to their children at home, opting instead to take from other teachings such as Buddhism to instill good, morale values in their two dozen children, who range in age from 2-20.

Brady now calls the family ‘spiritually driven.’

‘We want to dispel all those, you know, myths and rumors about polygamist families,’ Robyn said.

‘The ones that have been in the spotlight, there’s things like abuse and stuff that go on but not every polygamist family is like that. We wanted to show that we’re normal, we’re healthy, our kids are amazing, you know, and good citizens, good students, and you know we’ve got a good family.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572599/Were-normal-times-five-Polygamist-stars-My-Five-Wives-ask-people-not-judge-unconventional-family.html#ixzz2vDmjBraz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

And So It Begins: The Push for Polygamy

Newt polygamy

This is a random round-up of opinion pieces pushing polygamy.

It is by no means exhaustive or even representative. It reflects what I’ve seen in casual internet browsing. One article goes back to the time of the last presidential election. The others were written after the DOMA decision.

Events and behaviors form patterns. The pattern for quite some time has been that opinion makers in high-profile media begin what quickly becomes a coordinated political movement with trial balloon pieces such as these. The normalization of polygamy is fully launched with such television shows as Big Love and Sister Wives.

The piece that irks me the most is the one by the so-called feminist who’s calling for polygamy. If she’s a feminist, then George Wallace was a Freedom Rider.

Is this the beginning of a push to redefine marriage to allow polygamy? What do you think?

From CNN:

It’s time to reconsider polygamy

by Mark Goldfeder, cnn.com

December 16th 2013

(CNN) – Polygamy is back in the headlines.Last week, a federal judge in Utah struck down part of the state’s anti-polygamy law as unconstitutional, although he kept the ban on possessing more than one marriage license at a time. Fans of the “Sister Wives” reality TV stars, who filed the suit, are rejoicing in the news.At the other end of the spectrum, TLC debuted its newest docuseries, “Breaking the Faith,” which tells the dark story of women and children trying to escape from the practice.

Another lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice alleges that polygamous clans are secretly running the show in Utah and Arizona townships, manipulating the political process from behind the scenes. And in Texas, the Attorney General’s Office is inchingcloser to seizing a massive polygamous ranch.Across the country, angry citizens are calling for the government to follow its own laws and crack down on polygamy.

Meanwhile, celebrities like Akon and various news outlets encourage people of all ages to reconsider plural marriage.What competing narratives about polygamy in America reveal is that whether or not a white-washed, clean-cut version of plural marriage could in theory legally exist, in practice it does not, and what states like Utah, Arizona and Texas actually have is an unregulated, dangerous and harmful situation, where the strong prey upon the weak and helpless.The time has come to address this discrepancy. When the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in U.S. v. Windsor in June, opening the door to federal recognition of same-sex marriage, it also set the stage for a discussion of plural marriage.DOMA defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

While DOMA obviously prohibited same-sex marriage (by requiring that a marital unit consist of a man and a woman), it also enshrined the prohibition against polygamy, by requiring that such a union be between only one man and one woman. Even before Windsor the Supreme Court had declared morals-based legislation invalid, renewing interest in polygamy. But in calling DOMA definitions unconstitutionally restrictive, the court, perhaps unwittingly, also struck down the federal numerical limitation in a marriage, immediately re-opening the possibility of plural marriage at the state level. Activists have taken note, and are only getting louder.

From Psychology Today:

The Three Reasons for Polygamy

by Nigel Barber, psychologytoday.com

October 23rd 2012

Both candidates for the presidency owe their very existence to polygamy (1). President Obama’s father belonged to the polygamous Luo tribe. Mitt Romney’s paternal great grandfathers moved to Mexico to continue the Mormon practice of polygamy then outlawed in the U.S. So the time is ripe to ask what advantages polygamy has over monogamy.

Although plural marriage is banned in developed countries, it is surprisingly common, and popular, elsewhere with 55 percent of women sharing their husbands in Benin and an average of 16 percent of women doing so in less developed nations (2). Polygamy may be detested in developed countries but it is practiced to some degree in most societies studied by anthropologists. What did polygamy do for the Obamas and the Romneys that they could not accomplish with monogamy?

Studies in animal behavior show that polygynous mating systems (i.e., one male mating with several females) have at least three possible advantages.

From Salon:

Legalize Polygamy!

No. I am not kidding.

By Jillian Keenan

Sister-wives Valerie, left, and Vicki serve breakfast to their children in their polygamous house in Herriman, Utah, in this file photo from May 30, 2007. Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints   polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)

But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

 

 

The Issue is Murder, and Our Willingness to Allow It

Death panelMy Sabbath rest from this blog came just in time.

I had read too many combox justifications for killing people.

The ones that took the prize were the comments defending the medical murder of an elderly Italian woman. This lady went to Switzerland and paid $14,000 to have herself murdered. She was in good health. Her only complaint was that she was depressed about aging and losing her looks.

How can anyone subscribe to the medical murder of a perfectly healthy woman who was depressed about losing her looks?

It appears that plenty of folks do.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when Belgium decided to allow medical murder for anyone, at any age, including babies? The talk then was all about unendurable suffering and how we had to murder children because they they were (1) terminally ill, and (2) in horrible pain?

Well, just a few days later, the death rap was a justification for the need to murder an elderly woman because she’s depressed about her looks, and it’s her choice. 

We were told at the beginning of this euthanasia debate that “mercy killing” or “death with dignity” or whatever you want to call it, was only to alleviate the suffering of people who were terminally ill and in unendurable pain. We put down animals, so the debate went, why not do the same for suffering people?

It now seems clear that those arguments were lies designed to get people to go along so that the liars could move to the next level of killing. As soon as the screw turns one half round and we get the power to kill those we decide are in pain and dying anyway, then the nasty old screw turns again and we are told that people should have the “right” to be killed for being sad, if that’s their choice.

Because now the arguments aren’t about “mercy” or “dignity” anymore, they’re about choice. It’s a person’s “choice” to be murdered, so who are we to argue?

Choice, which should be a beautiful word of freedom, has been perverted into a dark word of death. It’s ironic, but not surprising, to hear these promoters of death for the elderly use the same word that they use to justify killing the unborn.

The same people who come on this blog and argue for killing elderly people because they are depressed, also want to kill those with dementia. They are the same ones who will blast you with arguments based on “choice” in favor of killing the unborn with disabilities or for any other reason whatsoever.

The difference here is in the type and tenor of the arguments. They can’t argue, as they do with abortion, about the use of someone else’s body. It serves no purpose to kill grandma because her granddaughter was raped. So, we argue that it’s really Grandma’s “choice” to be killed.

How long before these killers unmask themselves and reveal that this killing is not for Grandma, but for us? How long before we simply say the truth: Sick people are a lot of trouble. Their care costs money, takes time and isn’t all that much fun.

How long before the arguments about “choice” do the next morph and finally become about how killing grandma and saving all that money we might waste on her could allow granddaughter to go to college? Or, if we did in our child with cancer, think of how much it would spare the other children? Or, why should we let that rich old bat sit on all that money when his or her kids need it to maintain their standard of living?

We are less than a fraction of an inch away from Hitler’s useless eaters argument.

The argument from choice as a justification for medical murder is an obvious ruse when we are talking about depressed people, those with dementia, etc. It is a lie, a deliberate, cold-blooded lie, calculated to inure us to murder so that we are ready to take the next step.

The issue is murder, and our willingness to allow it.

Let me repeat that: The issue is murder, and our willingness to allow it. 

These legalized killing fields are an ever-moving target of evil. They have no bottom because their arguments are based on something that does not exist: The ability of fallen and utterly selfish human beings to reason their way to moral behavior.

I asked the rhetorical question in an earlier post: Do you have to be a Catechism-believing Catholic to know this is wrong?

It appears the answer is yes, you do — or at the least, a Bible-believing Christian of some denomination.

There seems to be no place at the table of life for unbelievers, for the simple reason that unbelievers are all sitting at the table of death.

If you do not believe in the real God, you inevitably become your own god, and out of that self-deification flows every evil thing imaginable, including such a low regard for human life that no one, anywhere, is safe from the needle, the vacuum, the shot of poison to the heart.

I am a Catholic:

I do not kill the unborn.

I do not kill the elderly.

I do not kill children.

I do not kill the depressed, the lonely, the ugly, the disabled, or the weak.

I don’t even kill murderers on death row.

Catholics build hospitals to treat the sick.

Catholics provide food, legal services, counseling, shelter, clothing and education to those who need them.

And for this we are attacked. The same people who want to kill grandma also want to close our hospitals, corrupt our educational institutions and belittle and shame those of us in the pews for having the temerity to believe that human life is sacred and may not be ended arbitrarily.

But we will not accede to them. Because human life is sacred. Every human being, including these sad, lost unbelievers who want to kill everyone who can’t fight back, is made in the image and likeness of God. We are fallen and we have the capacity to do evil. But we also have the capacity to turn to God, be forgiven and walk in newness of life.

Today, I set before you life and death, God told the ancient Israelites.

I don’t know about the rest of the world. But I chose life.

Swiss Study Indicates Lonely, Unbelieving Women are Most Likely Euthanasia Victims

Grim Reaper

So who pays other people to murder them?

A new study gives us a profile of the typical victim of euthanasia. 

According to the Swiss study, 16% of the people euthanized did not have an underlying medical problem, or at least not one that was recorded on the death certificate. In 84% of the cases, the death certificate did list at least one underlying cause for euthanizing the victim.

A previous study showed that 25% of those who were euthanized did not have a fatal illness. In a number of cases, mood disorders and mental or behavioral disorders were given as the primary underlying reason the people were euthanized.

According to the study, those most likely to request assisted suicide were well-educated women from areas of a higher socio-economic standing. Those who live alone or were divorced were 50% more likely to be euthanized. Nonbelievers were 6 times more likely to seek death than Catholics. 

Maybe we should issue travel advisories warning well-to-do, unhappy atheist women who live alone to stay away from Switzerland. 

From the MailOnline:

Women, highly educated, divorced and rich people are more likely to die from assisted suicide, new research has revealed.


Researchers in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, found that of people helped by right-to-die organisations such as Dignitas, around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. 

They say this indicates that an increasing number of people may simply becoming ‘weary of life’.


 
Of people helped by right-to-die organisations in Switzerland, such as Dignitas (pictured), around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. - suggesting they were 'weary of life'

Of people helped by right-to-die organisations in Switzerland, such as Dignitas (pictured), around 16 per cent of death certificates did not register an underlying cause. – suggesting they were ‘weary of life’

 

The research, published online in the International Journal of Epidemiology – that shows assisted suicide is more common in women, the divorced, those living alone, the more educated, those with no religious affiliation, and those from wealthier areas.


A previous study of suicides by two right-to-die organizations showed that 25 per cent of those assisted had no fatal illness, instead citing ‘weariness of life’ as a factor.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2562850/Women-divorcees-atheists-likely-choose-assisted-suicide-nearly-20-saying-simply-weary-life.html#ixzz2tzYs8ZYM 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Abortions for Valentine’s Day. Gotta Love It.

Cecile Richards cropped

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

 

I know what my husband is going to get me for Valentine’s Day.

I know because I told him what to get.

I’m no fool. I know better than to just send him off to wander around in a store and come back with a slow cooker or a set of wrenches or maybe a case of the real man’s answer to every question in life: WD40.

I’m not going to share my request on this blog.That’s between me and my guy. But one thing I will say is that it is not on the list of things that Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, says that women want for Valentine’s Day. According to her, women need “really radical stuff” like

  • Preventive care
  • Birth control
  • Cancer screenings
  • Safe and legal abortion
  • Well women visits
  • Preventive care
  • Maternity care
  • Or, in other words, women need Planned Parenthood.

Before I jump off on the obvious. I’d like to point out a couple of things. First, this itty-bitty list is all that Planned Parenthood says that it does to earn the 4-5 hundred million dollars in tax payer funding that it receives each year. Second, several of the items on this list are duplicated. “Cancer screenings” and “preventive care/well women visits,” are the same thing.

So, if you reduce it down to what she’s actually claiming, Planned Parenthood itself admits that it provides (1) abortions, (2) pap smears, (3) birth control and (4) maternity care. I don’t know what kind of maternity care they are talking about. Is she claiming that women receive obstetrical care for the full nine months of pregnancy, as well as delivery care (including c-sections, blood transfusions, etc, if needed) and follow-up care for a couple of months afterwards?

That is what “maternity care” means to me. If Planned Parenthood provides this level of care, I am unaware of it. I did notice that “mammograms” were nowhere on the list, probably because Planned Parenthood’s repeated lies about this service have been exposed.

So, what does Planned Parenthood provide for all that money? Their primary business is the supply of dangerous chemical birth control and abortions, and they charge for those. They are not free to their patrons.

And, oh yes, they do a fair amount of lobbying, (paid for out of separate funds) participate in committees such as the one that gave us the HHS Mandate and provide huge amounts of “sex education” to public school students.

So. If women need Planned Parenthood for Valentine’s Day, then what they need is to be indoctrinated in Planned Parenthood’s notion of sexuality, then doped up on expensive and dangerous chemical forms of birth control with an abortion chaser, all to the tune of around half a billion government dollars.

I’m not going to tell anyone what I asked my hubby to get me for Valentine’s Day. But I will share this: It won’t kill anybody, and it costs a lot less than Planned Parenthood.

To see the full tweet Ms Richards sent, go to TownHall.com.

Woody Allen and Polanski: The Rich and Shameless Display Hypocrisy About Child Sexual Abuse

Tumblr mzbqi2N23P1rjriquo1 500

Nobody hates pedophiles more than the Rich and Shameless.

At least, they hate pedophiles when the pedophile is a priest.

Pedophile priests should be — and are — burned at the stake of public opinion, and their pedophile-enabling bishops along with them. That’s the verdict of the R&S set.

However, when the pedophile is a powerful director of successful films — who might conceivably be of benefit to their careers — we are reminded of the cinema “art,” these directors provide. As for the unimportant girl-child, well, she can’t give anybody a job or produce their play or anything of value. So what’s the beef? Put away the stake, douse the flames and quit the word processor. There will be no public hating today.

Here’s how the Rich and Shameless appear to regard these things:

Catholic priest caught with child pornography on his computer:

R&S: Burn/behead/draw-and-quarter him. At the least, send him, his bishop and the bishop’s dog to a maximum security prison for life.

Powerful director rapes a teen-aged girl:

R&S: It wasn’t rape rape. Let’s sign a petition protesting the police-state arrest of this great artist.

Powerful director, at age 56, has an affair with and marries a girl he has raised as his daughter, and is accused by her sister of having raped her when she was seven:

R&S: This is just a bitter woman (the girls mother) who is trying to get this fine man, who, by the way, is a “great artist.” His “personal life” should not interfere with the professional respect he receives for his “art.”  

Does anybody but me detect a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

I have no problem with sending pedophile priests to jail. I am as disgusted with the bishops who hid them and allowed them to continue in their abuse of children as anyone on this planet.

The difference between me and the Rich and Shameless is that I feel this way because of the children. I am not interested in using the sexual abuse of children as a leitmotif to try to define and destroy the Catholic Church. I also do not excuse priests who do this because they’re on “my” team. So far as I’m concerned, it’s all about the children.

These people, that I’m calling “Rich and Shameless” for lack of a better way to describe them, excoriate Catholic priests who sexually abuse children without mercy or limit. They extend this excoriation to the Church as a whole, drubbing all priests and bishops with the same filthy brush.

Then they turn around and deny and defend powerful members of their own community from well-founded accusations of egregious sexual abuse of children. They use specious denials, personal testimonies, accusations and claims of some sort of non-existent moral high ground to excuse who they want excused from whatever they do. It gets so ridiculous that they inevitably end up skewering themselves with their own dissimulations.

I don’t think that people who do this care about the sexual abuse of children. I think they use it when the sexual abuse fits their other objectives as a means of attacking people and causes they don’t like. I think they then turn around and dismiss it, to quote Shakespeare, as much ado about nothing when the accused is one of their own, even when the accusations against their own stink like an open sewer.

Their outrage over pedophile priests looks like a pose and a sham. Their reactions to pedophiles, both charged and credibly accused, who are also powerful directors, are exhibits a and b, pointing to that conclusion.

French Protestors March Against “Government Family-Phobia”

r

Photo Source: Reuters

A lot of French people joined marched for the traditional family on February 2.

Estimates of the numbers of marchers vary so widely that it appears the estimators were either at different marches, or they are deliberately giving politically-slanted numbers. 

Despite this, a few things seem clear. There is little doubt that large numbers of French people are continuing to resist government-mandated changes in the family.

It also appears that French government officials have no problems disrespecting their own citizens by labeling them “dark forces” and “far-right zealots.” That seems to be going a bit far, considering that the protestors are asking for the preservation of the same family structure that has been prevalent throughout all of Western society for the past 2,000 years. 

I do not know where this will end. But I don’t think it is a one-off event in one country. It is, rather, a harbinger of things to come. We are at the same place with the destruction of the family that we were with the destruction of the sanctity of human life that occurred at Roe. 

That is to say that those who support traditional marriage are confused, baffled and unsure what to do next. At the same time, many in the larger culture have been successfully propagandized into a naive and false view of the issues. 

Demonstrations such as those happening in France are not the end. They are a beginning. 

From Reuters:

(Reuters) – Over 100,000 conservative French marched through Paris and Lyon on Sunday accusing the government of “family-phobia” for legalizing gay marriage and other planned policies they say will harm traditional families.

The marchers, expressing growing frustration with the unpopular left-wing government, denounced new sex equality lessons in schools and urged the government not to legalize medical procedures to help same-sex couples have children.

Most demonstrators were middle-class families, some pushing little children in prams, posing no apparent risk of violent confrontation with the police that Interior Minister Manuel Valls had said would be dealt with severely.

The government of President Francois Hollande, suffering poll ratings near record lows, has delayed further social reforms until after next month’s municipal elections following massive protests against legalizing same-sex marriage last year.

One Paris protester, Severine Chevrier, said: “Mr Hollande doesn’t listen to us or want to talk to us (and) Mr Valls … will do everything to shut us up.”

“We have the same message (as last year), we just want it to be heard,” said Michel Girard, also marching in the capital. “It’s the defense of children and the family.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X