There are two things you can do about a tornado.
1. Get out of the way.
Pope Francis displayed St Peter’s bones at the closing mass of the Year of Faith.
These pitiful shards of bone are all that’s left of the earthly body of St Peter. But the Church which Christ built on his efforts is vast and growing.
Warning: Rant ahead.
Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, is now running for Congress.
I have no problem with that. But he’s evidently written a book about and is now going around discussing the people he guarded while he was in the Secret Service, including both Presidents Bush and Obama.
I have a bit of advice for Mr Bongino, as well as other Secret Service agents: Keep your mouth shut.
The same goes for priests, nuns, counselors, therapists, doctors and politicians.
These are privileged positions which give those of us who hold them access to the deepest secrets of people’s lives. If you can’t keep your mouth shut about the deeply personal things that people share with you, then you shouldn’t be in a position of such trust.
What that means is don’t talk about the things your parishioners, patients, constituents, or the people you guard share with you. Don’t gripe about it, don’t gossip about it, don’t make fun of it, don’t talk about it or allude to it, or discuss it, even without using their names. Ever. To anyone. Period.
I don’t know anything about Mr Bongino’s politics, but if the story I read in which he discussed two presidents he protected are true, I know all I need to know about his character. If he can’t keep his mouth shut, he shouldn’t have been in the Secret Service, and he doesn’t belong in public office.
Photo from Albuquerque Project Defend Life
Albuquerque voters recently came out in support of late-term abortion in all its grizzly inhumanity.
The only explanation offered in the comments on an earlier post about this vote was a bogus bit of nonsense about how late-term abortion was “necessary” because of a “medical emergency.” I say this is bogus, because, well, it is bogus.
Look at the video below and tell me how the procedures these people describe are in any way medically better for the woman than simply delivering the baby and then trying to save it?
Among other things, the video describes a week-long procedure, having the baby alone in a hotel room, and birthing a dead baby while alone on a toilette. According to their web site, the abortion clinic in question does abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy, which is a viable baby. I keep wondering if the people who make these comments actually know what an abortion is, and how it’s done.
The pro abortion movement sells — quite successfully, I might add — abortion as a magical re-wind which just — poof!! — makes the woman un-pregnant. They cook up fantasy scenarios where a late-term abortion is actually necessary to save the woman’s life, when in truth it layers another load of medical procedures, as well as much less medical supervision, on top of what the woman would go through if she simply delivered her baby.
Abortion is not a magical re-wind. It does not undo pregnancy and make it never have happened. It kills the baby. That is the whole purpose of an abortion. Late-term abortions do this in a way that is both graphic and cruel to the woman, as well as the baby.
It is amazing to me that the same medical profession that lobbies so aggressively against home births based on how dangerous a home birth is, turns around and lobbies with equal vigor for women delivering dead babies alone on a hotel room toilette when the procedure is called an abortion.
One of the women in this video convinced the medical staff that she was 27 weeks pregnant, which is actually one week earlier than Southwestern Women’s Options does abortions. Twenty-seven weeks is a viable baby that would most likely survive delivery and go on to a normal life.
This circles back around to what I think is an important question: Why did Albuquerque voters come out in support of late-term abortion?
A lot of things influence elections. People tend to forget that elections are not decided by public opinion. Elections are decided by the people who vote. Politicians influence the outcome of elections by when they hold the election (Certain dates tend toward lower turn-outs, which are much easier for special interest groups to win.) and by how a ballot question is worded.
Advertising is also a major influence on elections, as is how strongly community groups such as the Chamber of Commerce come into the debate. If Albuquerque is anything like Oklahoma, the Chambers of Commerce in the big cities are pretty much owned by pro abortion Republicans with a smattering of pro abortion Democrats. There is a good bit of inter-locking between the Chamber’s inside group and the boards of organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
This is not true of the smaller chambers around the state, but they don’t appear to be taken all that seriously by the two biggies, at least not here in Oklahoma.
One question I have is how much the Albuquerque-Santa Fe chambers of commerce influenced this vote. Since this was a local vote, their influence would matter. I would guess, based on what I heard back when I was pro choice, that the Santa Fe chamber is pro abortion. That may not be true now, but it was true in the 80s and 90s. I don’t know anything about the Albuquerque chamber.
I would guess that the rank and file Albuquerque voter did not vote for late term abortion as it actually is, but rather for some fantasy version of late-term abortion that doesn’t exist outside of pro-abortion polemics. There is no question that late-term abortion is infanticide for the sake of committing infanticide. It has no other purpose. If people fully understood this, only pro abortion fanatics, eugenicists and those who gain from the procedure would be in favor of it.
I don’t think that describes the citizenry of Albuquerque. My question from an earlier post remains: What were the voters told and how were they influenced to vote in favor of the horror of late-term abortion?
If anyone has links to ads or other ways in which this vote was put together, I would love to see them.
From Live Action:
Would John Kennedy have kept us out of war in Viet Nam?
Any reply is conjecture. However, he had actually been to war. That is a far different perspective from the one we find in the long string of draft dodgers and never-serveds we’ve had in recent years.
My friends who’ve seen war are far less eager to commit American troops than my other friends who view combat from an armchair perspective. There was a time when the sons of presidents and men of great wealth and power, such as a vastly wealthy former American ambassador to England, fought and died in defense of this country.
Kennedy was of that time. He had experienced combat and nearly died as a result of it. His older brother had been killed in combat.
He knew the price.
How those life experiences would have influenced his decisions concerning Viet Nam, no one can say. But they would have been an enormous factor. Of that much, I am sure.
I lost people I care about in Viet Nam. I think their lives were wasted by incompetent military commanders and bad presidents of both political parties.
Here is a long speech from President Kennedy, talking about peace. I wish we had presidents today who felt the same regard for peace as this man.
This video is not a speech, but it gives a good idea of how President Kennedy was presented to the world back then, through the eyes of a more current journalist.
I have always found it difficult to comprehend the gulf between the fairy-tale photos of President Kennedy’s family life and the sordid tales of his personal sexual behavior.
I think the overall effect of learning that their beloved president had lied to them in such a fundamental way contributed to the cynicism about government that has grown in this country since his death.
Was everything what we thought we knew about him as a person a lie?
Who was this man?
(If you click on the link, it will give you a second link. Click on that, and it will take you to the video.)
JFK will be remembered long after the other dramas of the twentieth century are as obscure as the Hundred Years War is to people today.
This speech and the actions that followed it.
For the first time in history, human beings left this planet and stood on another part of the universe. It was a baby step, since where we went was our own moon. But it was the beginning of something that, if it plays out in future generations, will inevitably lead to JFK getting a mention in the children’s history lessons of the future.
If, on the other hand, humanity does not follow up on this first adventure into space and we simply molder here, this speech will be forgotten, along with everything else people did in the past century. Events seem all-powerful when you’re close to them. And then they fade. As people die and new adventures come about, they fade away altogether.
Here is Kennedy’s speech announcing the push to put Americans on the moon.
My mother’s comment after this speech was “the president taught the nation a Sunday school lesson.”
The question which I wonder about all these years later is whether or not President Kennedy would have been able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he had lived. President Johnson used the grief of Kennedy’s assassination to help pass the bill. Also, President Johnson’s many years in the Senate leadership gave him enormous legislative skills and power that came into play in the passage of this law.
(It is a phenomenal speech, btw. Just ask any black person who lived under segregation. This speech was a white man, speaking to their hearts.)
I’m going to post several of President Kennedy’s most important speeches. I think that’s a better way to remember him on the 50th anniversary of his death than going back through the assassination.
The question I want to look at was what kind of president he was, and what effect his presidency had on history. I already have my opinion, but I’m interested in hearing yours.
This is a video of his Inaugural Address.
What if President John Fitzgerald Kennedy had not been assassinated?
1. Would he have gotten us out of Viet Nam?
2. Would his philandering have been exposed while he was in office?
3. Would Jackie have divorced him?
4. Would he and Jackie have had more children?
5. Would his bad health have killed him while he was in office, anyway?
6. Would he and Bobby have broken the Mafia in America?
7. Would Richard Nixon ever have been president?
8. Would there have been other, perhaps successful, assassination attempts against his life?
9. Would the 1964 Civil Rights Act have become law?
10. Would this country be a better place?