How to Raise a Spoiled Brat

From the Globe And Mail:

In the consensual living model, father doesn't know best. Neither does mom. Instead, parents and children are equal partners in family life, according to the principles laid out at consensual-living.com.

It's been tried. It does not work. Kids need parents to tell them what to do. Adults often know better than the kids.

When the kid goes out in the real world, people are not going to validate his feelings in order to make him feel better and get them to co-operate (unless they're customer service agents, but even then...)

Kids must learn that while acknowledging and expressing one's feelings is important, it's usually secondary to other goals. Your feelings and wants are not more important than others-- in fact, you have to learn how to control and be considerate of others, especially in public.

As the mother of two kids on the autistic spectrum, this method strikes me as a load of baloney. Now to be sure, parenting ASD kids with traditional authoritarianism doesn't work-- goodness knows I've tried. But it's up to the parents to strategize and modify the environment to get the children to produce appropriate behaviour.

I'm very co-ercive that way.

But making sure the kids produce the right behaviour leads to greater happiness and self-esteem. I have to say that my children are generally well-behaved in public, especially considering their autism. (Saying that, of course, is just inviting a meltdown, :) Nonetheless...)

Because they behave in public, they get to enjoy public outings. They are appreciated by other people. They learn to discipline themselves so that they can continue enjoying their experiences.

That's what kids need to learn.

Not that their needs and (especially) their wants are just as "valid". Any parent with common sense knows that a kid who hears their concerns are as valid will interpret it as meaning that they are more valid.

It's a recipe for raising a self-centred child.

Parents should not be afraid of asserting the fact that they have more knowledge, logic and wisdom than their kids. It doesn't make them infallible, but it makes them better equipped to know what's good for their kids than their kids do. They have the authority and the experience to raise their children. They shouldn't give in to the irrational wants and feelings of their children. That's setting up their children for misery. Sometimes that may upset the children. But parents know what's best. Kids are driven by immaturity.

Randy Hillier's Speech Announcing His Candidacy for the PCPO

Lots of positive things in his speech.

I wonder if the Red Tories in the party would let him implement it.

If you want a party that is both fiscally and socially conservative, support the Family Coalition Party.

Randy Hillier says he would make HRC's redundant: Family Coalition would ABOLISH them

I've seen some positive reactions to PCPO leadership candidate Randy Hillier's statement that as premier of Ontario, he would make the commissions "redundant".

Speechers see some political opposition to the HRC's, and they're thrilled. Randy's their man.

The problem is what he doesn't say.

He will not abolish them.

They will still exist to take complaints. They will exist to push through a politically correct agenda. Sure, rules of procedure will make it somewhat harder.

But a future liberal government would be able to reverse those measures.

The surest way to guarantee liberties is to abolish them and abolish all complaints that depend on feelings of hurt and discrimination.

We already have a court system to deal with legal complaints. Why continue with a parallel system?

It's time to abolish the Human Rights Commission. Making them "redundant" will only leave them open to being re-activated.

Free Speechers, don't settle for anything less that their full abolition. Bargain wisely. If he's promising to make them redundant now, down the line, he might simply place a few restrictions. Politicians tend to over-promise. He may not live up to that exact commitment.

VIDEO: Mr. Bean does The Apostle's Creed (Humour)

Condoms fail to protect from HIV and pregnancy at least some of the time

And people wonder why we oppose condoms.

Even if used consistently, if you are having sex with an infected person "over time, it will get you," warns Dr. Thomas Fitch, a clinical professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center.

(...)

"That means that in a year, if couples use condoms perfectly, 2% would become pregnant, and if they used it typically, about 15% would become pregnant," said Adele Lane, manager of the healthy sexuality program at Peel Public Health.

Man regrets his involvement in an abortion

A man recounts the story of driving his friend that friend's girlfriend to have an abortion.

The event sat in my stomach like boiling water in a pot. The casualness of it, the unremarkable way the other patients talked and the quickness with which it was over, done with, seemingly forgotten ... I felt shriveled like a raisin. As time passed, I thought about it less. Periodically, the memory reemerges and I feel sad, though not as much as in the beginning. It is a mental marking, faded by the
elements of time.

(...)

But my view has changed over the years. I have come to relate more to the idea that what we are talking about at the most basic level is ending a life before it ever has a chance to begin. And I’m not sure
anymore if that should be legal. But I don’t feel so strongly about it that I want to stand on street corners and hold signs or lead a fight to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What I feel most is the residual effect of a choice. For all the ideology I had on the issue, my small part in the event impacted me deeply. I can only imagine how it affected the girl who actually had the abortion. And I wonder if she regrets it. But mostly I think that if she were to tell me her position on abortion, I would listen.

(...)

Abortion is not an issue to be discussed by people who are cloaked in the
armor of ideology; it is something to be commented on by those who know. People who have gone through with it understand something the rest of us don’t, as do those who refrained after serious consideration. (...)The opinions of those without personal experience on this issue carry almost no weight at all. They are opinions devoid of substance, light as air and as easily stirred.

This is another version of "you can't have an abortion/you've never been pregnant/you've never had an abortion" so you don't know.

Facts matter.

Rationality matters.

People who have never had an abortion have insight divorced from the emotion of the experience.

That can be useful.

The idea that only knowledge gained from experience is dangerous. Dispassionate examination can lead one to some insight. If your judgement is heavily influenced by your unique experience of abortion, you may blind yourself to realities that you cannot see due to the hurt and the emotions that you underwent during the situation.

If you decided for an abortion based on the authority of a doctor who told you that a fetus is a blob, and then you have to re-examine the issue, you may be fairly invested in that opinion. To admit that it is not a blob, and to acknowledge that you were, in some sense, tricked, leads to more pain.

You cannot allow personal experience to be the sole judge of a phenomenon.

Abortion is not an ideological issue. It is a personal one.

Ideologies lead to judgments. Judgments can be valid or invalid, regardless of an individual's unique experience.

What if one person has a very positive experience, and one person has a very negative experience.

Those two cancel each other out.

If one person says "based on my experience, abortion should be legal" and another says "based on my experience, abortion should be illegal" you are back to square one.

There is room for value judgments, but we don't like those. Because value judgments implicitly assign responsibility and, ultimately, blame.

I think this is what the author is trying to avoid: the blame game. He doesn't want to be judgemental or harsh. On the other hand, he's coming to the realization that the abortion he was involved in was a grave matter. He neither wants to deal with the pain of having to admit his guilt in the experience, or feel the pain of acknowledging that his friend and the girl killed their own baby.

But the only way to stop pain is to admit to reality. Lies and distortions only perpetuate pain. We live in a culture that says: if I only find the right thoughts *for me*, if only I drum up the correct sentiments, I will be okay.

As if by magical thinking.

It doesn't work that way.

Thinking alone cannot lead to healing. One's thinking must be concordant with reality.

Thoughts that do not correspond to reality will hit the brick wall of logic. Reality is inherently logical and self-consistent. If you think things that are not consistent with reality, you will have to confront those inconsistencies. This only prolongs the pain. The sooner you admit the truth, the sooner you can heal.

People believe that values are purely subjective and a matter of a fallible and unreliable perception of reality. They think value judgments are purely individual reactions to reality.

However, nobody actually lives that way, and you cannot live that way. Human beings cannot stand the dissonance between thought and reality. If you see black, you can try to convince yourself it's white, but you will not be at peace with it.

Facts matter when it comes to emotional healing. And if you've been involved in an abortion, you don't always know the facts. You just know the emotions.

People outside the experience can know facts that you don't. They can present information that can lead to healing.

That's why it's important to have people who've never had an abortion participate in the debate. Emotion and experience are not the only forms of knowledge. Self-talk, trying to reframe the experience to fit a desired emotional goal--without taking into account the facts-- just prolongs true healing. Facts are what lead to correct values. And when you have correct values, you can have an adequate perception of reality. And this is what leads people to recover from their painful abortion experiences. Not self-talk aimed at giving the experience a whole new spin. Spin doesn't work. Spin isn't reality. Facts are reality.

On the Church's Supposed Lack of Relevance

True Confessions:

To mix religion with entertainment is to rob religion of its true purpose - to separate us from the world and help us focus on God. Second, it caters to the flesh, which is in enmity with the spirit. Romans 8:7, 8 says: For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (RSV)

The flesh constantly demands to be entertained, to be fed, to be noticed, to be indulged. It is not about to deny itself anything. Catering to it by providing pretty colors on a screen and cute ditties will not help our spirit grow closer to God. The path to holiness does not lie in slick marketing campaigns that promise a good time will be had by all - but by remembering that we are travelers through the world, in it but not of it. And heaven's future citizens focus on heavenly things.

I used to think that Catholicism was woefully behind the times. For many years, I was a member of a church that had slick marketing campaigns and excellent entertainment. I used to think this was what a modern church should be. In order to be "relevant" to the culture, I reasoned that we needed current modes of reaching out to them.

But did it produce anything good for the spirit? It was as though we were advertising "Christianity-Lite," plenty of flavor but zero substance. It never challenged me spiritually and somehow, deep inside, I knew as Christians that we were supposed to be challenged - not coddled.

It's not over yet for George Tiller

As any pro-lifer who's been on the net today knows,late-term abortionist George Tiller was acquitted of 19 charges in reference to his relationship to Ann Neuhaus.

I read a bunch of reactions from feminists were just thrilled that this man would continue to inject potassium chloride in their hearts. Who cares about these babies, right?

But they shouldn't be too ecstatic.

The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts has released to the public a petition it filed in December listing eleven allegations against Tiller’s license.

According to Operation Rescue:

According to a statement released by the KSBHA, “Violations alleged include performing an abortion on a fetus that was viable without having a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with him; unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or professional incompetency; and commitment of acts likely to deceive, defraud or harm the public.”

A viable fetus. You got that? That's a fetus past 24 weeks.

And what if it is true?

Do you think feminists care about the viable fetus who was killed in the process?

Why of course not. That's the woman's choice. Late-term abortion should be safe, legal, free and accessible, even if the feminist disagree with it. The baby? Well tough luck, baby. You have to die. A woman's will is more valuable than a baby's life.

Even Morgentaler wouldn't do abortions on babies this late, and if a woman in a third-trimester pregnancy came to him wanting an abortion he'd persuade her to not abort.

George Tiller is worse than Morgentaler, in that regard.

The feminists do not have the conscience to step up to the plate and at least stand up for the right to life of babies this late. Many disagree that babies this late should be aborted. The baby deserves some value, but since a woman's opinion matters more than a baby's life, they can't push for protection of the unborn.

Oh, oh right. Viable babies are never aborted.

We'll see about that.

---

UPDATE: I read the petition. It's just awful.

The impression that I get is that Tiller is in the business of aborting the babies of adolescents who simply waited too late to get an abortion (for the most part).

I will list the ages of the mother, and the gestational ages of the fetuses that were killed, according to each count.

COUNT 1: 14 years old, 26 weeks

COUNT 2: 10 years old, 28 weeks

COUNT 3: 15 years old, 26 weeks

COUNT 4: 15 years old, 28 weeks

COUNT 5: 15 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 6: 14 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 7: 15 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 8: 13 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 9: 15 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 10: 18 years old, 25 weeks

COUNT 11: 16 years old, 29 weeks

You'd think that at 25 weeks, if the mother really was in trouble, they would just deliver the babies.

But no. They can't just deliver the babies. They have to make sure they end up dead.

Tough luck for those babies, though! They have to be killed. Millions of Americans are waiting to adopt, but these babies had to be killed for whatever reason.

This is just atrocious. This is what feminists support:



It's just a baby. Not as important as the woman bearing it. She has to be able to kill to assert her own autonomy.

What a sick philosophy.

A woman's abortion story

This epitomizes our culture's attitude about abortion.

For I know that the primary reason I am able to compartmentalize my own, quiet struggle is because it is entirely my own, and it is entirely my own because of the nature of the choice that I made. My child does not wander this earth, living another life. My child - and it is such a mental and emotional wank to even use these terms - was never born. My child never became my child. He/she/it was embryo, barely fetus, not a child. I did not have a child; I had a pregnancy. And then I didn't.

(And yet. Even as I say that - "I did not have a child; I had a pregnancy" - I want to take it back. I'm a mother. I've had a very early term miscarriage. I very nearly lost Emilia to miscarriage. I know the terror of losing or fearing to lose that embryo, that not-quite-fetus, that not-child who is loved none the less for his or her unformedness. I would never have said - could never have said - of the embryo-that-became-Emilia, this is just a pregnancy, there is no child here. For even though she was not yet child, she was the cellular embodiment of my wish that she become a child, that she become my child. In the absence of that wish... is it just cells that remain? I don't know. I do not know. I have not yet sorted this out. It is painful, trying to sort this out, this which might be, simply, unsortable. All I know is that these experiences are different, despite their similarities, and that I remain firmly committed to the rightness of having the ability - the choice - to distinguish between them. Ah, me.)

It will be easier to heal once you admit the truth.

The those "cells" were a human life. Not a potential life.

The longer one engages in mental gymnastics, the longer the pain remains.

VIDEO: The Obama Song (Humour)

H/T: No Sheeples Here

UN passes anti-defamation-of-religion resolution to protect Islam

Catholicism is routinely defamed.

But you know what? Catholics just get on the blogs and counter the misinformation.

No one goes to jail.

No one faces a Human Rights Commission.

And that's the way it should be.

I'm proud to say Canada voted against this resolution.

Canada’s Terry Cormier pointed out that the resolution continued to focus on one religion above all others.

“It is individuals who have rights, not religions,” he said. “Canada believes that to extend defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects.”

(...)

Earlier in the week, more than 180 human rights, religious and secularist organizations from around the world in a statement urged the council to reject the resolution, calling it part of an OIC campaign designed to legitimize blasphemy laws and restrict freedom of expression.

I think people should have the right to criticize.

Period.

VIDEO: March for Life 2009

H/T: SYG

Warning to commenters

Haloscan may be acting up again.

Don't post a multi-paragraph response and not save it.

Like I did.

*Sigh*.

Unreported in the MSM: children of abortion chain owner died in MT plane crash...just feet from Tomb of the Unborn

Just has that ironic feel about it.

But what the news sources fail to mention is... the [cemetery] contains... the Tomb of the Unborn... erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation....

It strikes me as a providential sign.

Though I'm really sad the abortion chain owner lost his kids. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I genuinely hope he and his wife experience healing and divine consolation.

International Pro-Abortion Group Conspired With Hospital to Kill Unborn Twins in Famous Brazilian Case - Part II

92,445 girls from 10 to 14 years old gave birth between 2000 and 2006 in Brazil


Investigative report
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

See Part I at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032018.html

RECIFE, BRAZIL, March 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After learning that hospital staff at the Institute of Children's Medicine of Pernambuco (IMIP) were seeking to manipulate the parents of a pregnant nine year old to approve an abortion for their child, Fr. Edson Rodrigues says that officials at the IMIP sought to deny all access to the parents and child by the tutelary counselors (representatives of the local child protective services) and to Fr. Rodrigues himself.

However, following the father's exit from the facility, Fr. Rodrigues says that he and the two tutelary counselors were able to talk to him. The father, Erivaldo Francisco, said that he had been convinced of the necessity of an abortion by a social assistant named Karolina Rodrigues, a woman with no medical expertise. Despite headlines in the local newspaper claiming that he and the girl's mother were being guided by a team of medical experts at the hospital, he acknowledged that he had not spoken to a single doctor,

But what Francisco had been told was false. In fact, as the IMIP would later admit publicly, his daughter was in no danger at the time the abortion took place. Moreover, Brazil's own statistics reveal that pregnancies for girls 14 and under have a lower mortality rate than women as a whole.

According to statistics provided by the pro-abortion Grupo Curumim and derived from the Brazilian government's DATASUS/MS service, 192,445 girls from 10 to 14 years old gave birth between 2000 and 2006 in Brazil, while 105 died during pregnancy, birth, or having an abortion, that is, 55 out of 100,000 (http://grupocurumim.blogspot.com/2009/03/coletiva-sobre-caso...). Even if one were to assume that none of the deaths were caused by induced abortions, an unlikely assumption, this mortality rate is lower than the average maternal mortality rate for all ages in Brazil, which is 75 out of 100,000 (see http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/idb2007/c03.htm).

The rate may be lower because such cases, being relatively uncommon, receive special attention in Brazil. Hospitals monitor such pregnancies closely, and a cesarean section can be done to protect the child from the rigors of giving birth.

Dr. Elizabeth Kipman Cerqueira, a Brazilian obstetrician, said in a public statement on the case that "I don't know anyone who died because of the young age at which she was impregnated, if she received adequate accompaniment," and that she personally knows of cases of 10 year olds who gave birth and are in good health. She added that the abortion is likely to do serious damage to the girl psychologically, and noted that early labor could have been induced at some point after 22 weeks, rather than an abortion. The twins were already at over 20 weeks gestation when they were killled.

However, despite the lack of danger to the mother, pro-abortion physicians at the highest levels of the hospital were conspiring to bring about the death of her unborn twins. Vilma Guimares, the coordinator of IMIP's Center for Attention for Women, was publicly advocating an abortion as early as February 27, even though she admitted that she had never examined the girl. "In situations of pregnancies that carry risks for the mother it is better to interrupt the pregnancy," she told the Diario de Pernambuco newspaper. Based on such a standard, abortions could be justified in all pregnancies, because pregnancy always carries some degree of risk.

Fr. Rodigues notes that Vilma Guimares was one of only two people who had access to the mother and her daughter at IMIP, the other being the hospital's director, Antonio Figueiras. It is unknown if Guimares induced the child's mother to give consent to the abortion.

Following the events at the IMIP, Rodrigues and the tutelary counselors contacted Bishop Francisco Biasin of Pesqueira, the diocese in which the child resided, and explained the situation. Biasin in turn contacted Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife, where the IMIP was located. The two began to confer with attorneys and doctors to determine what they could do to save the unborn twins living inside the girl. During the period in which the controversy raged Archbishop Cardoso says he was working 15 hours a day on the case.

Cardoso held a meeting on the morning of March 3rd in the episcopal residence, attended by the director of the IMIP, Antonio Figueiras. After being informed of the manipulative behavior of hospital staff, Figueiras agreed to cancel plans to carry out an abortion on the twins at his facility.

In addition, the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife began legal proceedings to stop the abortion. On the afternoon of March 3, Figueiras and Erivaldo both appeared before the Tribunal of Justice of the State of Pernambuco, and the presiding judge reportedly expressed his desire to prevent the abortions from occurring. Erivaldo Francisco became convinced that he had made a mistake in consenting to the abortion, and signed a statement withdrawing permission for the procedure, which he delivered to the hospital. The hospital publicly acknowledged to the O Globo newspaper that permission to carry out the procedure had been withdrawn by Francisco.

However, in the interim, Archbishop Cardoso had received a call from Figueiras, Rodrigues reports. Members of a pro-abortion feminist organization, Grupo Curumim, had entered the hospital with two technicians from the Secretary of Health of the State of Pernambuco, and had convinced the mother to sign her daughter out of the hospital. Rodrigues says he was told that she then left, accompanied by the pro-abortion Vilma Guimares. The hospital would claim that it did not know where they had gone, and had no means of contacting Guimares.

Grupo Curumim, which agitates for the legalization of abortion in Brazil, is an organization funded by the international pro-abortion lobby, notes Alberto Monteiro, a prominent Brazilian pro-life activist.

"Grupo Curumim affirms that it is an organization whose work is financed by the IWHC, or International Woman's Health Coalition...the IWHC is a feminist entity and one of the biggest international promoters of clandestine abortions," writes Monteiro in an open email on the case. "The entity was practically funded by Adrianne German, a sociologist who before having founded the IWHC had worked for the Population Council of New York, one of the Rockefeller organizations that developed, in the 1950s, all of the work on population control and the promotion of abortion which we see today at the international level without knowing where these things come from. "

When asked by the newspaper O Globo about releasing the girl from the hospital, the newspaper reports that "the hospital argues that it was obligated to let her go, given that the child did not run the risk of death and that is the right of the child's guardian," thus admitting publicly that the child was not, in fact, in danger of death (see original article in Portuguese at http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/cidades/mat/2009/03/04/igreja-c...).

Arriving at the hospital with Francisco and a physician and psychologist sent by the Archdiocese, Rodrigues reports that after being made to wait, they were told that the child had been removed by her mother, and no one knew where they had gone. Rodrigues held a press conference denouncing the transfer.

The next day, March 4, the press revealed that the child had been taken to the Amaury de Medeiros Integral Health Center (Centro Integrado de Saúde Amaury de Medeiros, or CISAM) of the University of Pernambuco. There, the openly pro-abortion medical staff had aborted the twins.

Dr. Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque, who performed the abortions, stated openly that the case "showed that the question of abortion is a matter of public health in Brazil, and must be considered case-by-case. Restrictive laws do not improve public health, particularly women's health," in an interview with the BBC.

He also claimed in the same interview that "the religious laws were written by the clerics, and do not translate God's words exactly. That gave us peace of mind, and we recognized that the Catholic Church has made, and continues to make, mistakes, and especially with regard to women's rights in Brazil and the rest of the world. The Church is meddling inappropriately into these rights, which are internationally recognized human rights."

---

This is all you need to know:

Members of a pro-abortion feminist organization, Grupo Curumim, had entered the hospital with two technicians from the Secretary of Health of the State of Pernambuco, and had convinced the mother to sign her daughter out of the hospital.

A bunch of feminists convinced a reluctant mother to let the girl have an abortion.

They manipulated a woman opposed to abortion to consent to an abortion.

Yay choice.

Muslim Nutjob Goes Ape on Toronto Subway

Girl on the Right has the details

I am totally shaken. On the subway on my way over to feed Kathy’s cat while they’re away at a funeral, it finally happened. Some deranged 6th Century Mohammedan lost it and began screaming ALLAHU ACKBAR, calling everyone racists, and talking about Bin Laden and rising up.

Luckily no one was hurt. I feel her panic!

Kind of scary. I was in Toronto last week. I know, I wasn't in that subway, but the tendency to ask what if it had been me is strong.

Watch the progressives trivialize her experience. I bet they'll say she is making it up or exaggerating.

Because we all need a good laugh...Worst music videos ever

Put down your drink. Keep an open mind. Then click on these videos for a good laugh.

I had a tough time picking which one I should present first.

And don't worry: they're reasonably kid friendly.

I Wanna Love You Tender:

(If you want to turn it off 45 seconds in...wait until the dancers come on. They're precious).




Man, it looked like some local high school cheeleading squad was pressed into doing this video. I can't stop laughing.

This one is more of a comedic effort. Presenting Electronik Supersonik by Zlad:

Brazilian officials protect life of sexually assaulted teen and her baby

Sao Paulo, Brazil, Mar 23, 2009 / 04:45 pm (CNA).- Officials in the Brazilian state of Bahia have extended protection to a 13 year-old girl—four months pregnant after being raped by her father—and to her unborn child, thus preventing a tragic ending to a story similar to that of a 9 year-old girl in Recife who was pregnant with twins and recently forced to undergo an abortion.

According to the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, the girl and her guardian appealed to government officials to help defend the life of the baby. The father of the girl was arrested, and since her mother had died and no other family member was willing to take her in, she was allowed to express her own will.

“The greatest right of the child is the right to life,” said Lindidalva Santana, an attorney who is representing the girl. Bruno Texeira of the attorney general’s office of Bahia said an abortion would only be allowed if the girl’s life were at risk.

Paulo Leao of the Catholic Union of Lawyers of Rio de Janeiro praised the decision of the girl, who officials said had been abused for years by her father.

Carlos Polo, director of the Population Research Institute for Latin America, explained that this case and that of the 9 year-old girl in Recife are just a few of the many cases that the government and radical feminists are attempting to use to gain public support for abortion, in order to achieve “total legalization in Brazil.” “Their aim is to set a precedent that all minor girls who are pregnant are in danger of death and must therefore abort. By recasting all cases in this way they would be covered by the plan to legalize abortions in cases of life of the mother,” said Polo.

source

Feminists can't push their case if the facts are known. That's why they shield facts. That's why they never talk about abortion itself and are afraid of the pictures.

Just makes me sick.

Family Coalition Party Leader Giuseppe Gori Publishes His Political Philosophy

Family Coalition Party Leader Giuseppe Gori has published an online work titled Economic Optimalism which presents his political philosphy on how to run a government. He terms his particular view optimalism.

The idea behind optimalism is to base government spending and operations on scientific reality and real-world experience, not ideology.

Of course, most people do not want their government to be ruled by ideology, but by common sense. So what is the difference with optimalism?

To better illustrate this ideology, I will explain the means of adopting fiscal policy, i.e. budgeting. Because that's what a lot of the book deals with.

A country has a fixed amount of GNP, i.e. of resources, and you can use from either 0 to 100% of that country's resources to run the government. The optimalist attempts to find the optimal percentage of the country's GNP that needs to be spent on government operations and programs in order to maximize the economic effect of fiscal policy.

How? The government would tender bids to econometric firms-- firms that create economic models. These models would be public. One would be chosen as the model for the government's budget.

The percentage GNP would constitute the government's budget for that fiscal year.

And government departments would be allocated a percentage of that budget, not a fixed amount.

This has the advantage of never producing a deficit, and of expanding and contracting according to the current economic situation.

To finance this fiscal policy, optimalism proposes one type of tax: the Value-Added Tax (VAT). This one kind of tax would replace the numerous types of taxes already in place (income, property, corporate, fees), and eliminate bureaucracy and make the tax system more efficient.

This system of taxation is less "progressive" upfront, but is more favourable to the less fortunate because it creates more wealth, and that ultimately benefits them.

This system seeks to avoid the problems of politicians spending too much money to gain votes.

The idea is to create a government that is as efficient as possible, according to the available means.

That's an aspect of the system that I find very attractive. I neither advocate for small or big government, but I want "right-sized" government.

In that vein, optimalism advocates for the free market, competition in all industries and field of activities, but it can allow for things such as a fiscal stimulus in order to attain the optimal economic productivity.

There's a lot more in the book, and it's only 47 pages. Please take a look and comment.

Bernard Nathanson: On his conversion to the pro-life cause

Julie Culshaw quotes Bernard Nathanson in an interview published in the The Interim:

I started changing my mind in 1973, when advanced technology moved into our hospitals and offices. I speak now of ultrasound imaging, fetal heart monitoring electronically, hysteroscopy, fetoscopy - things that gave us a window into the womb. Over a period of three or four years, I mulled over these technologies and what they revealed ... They opened a window into the womb so we could look in it, see the unborn baby and measure it and observe it sleeping, swallowing, urinating and all the things we all do as members of the (human) community. I was finally persuaded that the fetus is a member of the human community, has to be regarded as such and has to be protected as such.

(...)

In order to give you some idea of the immense influence of this new techonology on the practice of obstetrics and our knowledge of the fetus, let me tell you that there is a huge book called The Cumulative Index Medicus,which lists every article published in every medical journal in the world. In the l969 edition of the Index under the heading of "fetus, physiology and anatomy of," there were five articles in the world's literature. As recently as that, we knew almost nothing of the fetus; when abortion on demand was unleashed in the United States, fetology essentially did not exist. In l979, there were twenty-eight hundred articles, and by l994 there were close to five thousand. This technology had opened a new world to us.

The Myth of Relativism and the Cult of Tolerance

From Larry Anderson. Read the whole thing and quote it on your blog. It's worth it.

But relativism is not a new idea. Ever since Protagoras declared, “Man is the measure of all things,” people have been attracted to relativism. Human beings are attracted to relativism -- not because it is true -- they are attracted to it because relativism is easy.

I mean two things by “easy” and I mean to discuss those two things later in this essay. I will introduce them here. First, relativism is easy on the intellect. A person’s entire understanding of the entire workings of the entire universe can be stated in eight words: The truth is that there is no truth. Here is a truth, if it is true, simple enough for any simpleton.

Next, relativism is easy on the conscience. If there is no truth out there then there are no values out there either; rather, the only values out there are the subjective ones that we create and put there. Thus, it is possible for us to agree to have this value as a shared value: if you let me make my values, I’ll let you make yours. The allowance by a society of the creation of conflicting values between one human being and another is, in our culture, called “tolerance.” As we will see, tolerance is one, but only one, possible moral outcome of relativism.

(...)

Here is the timetable so far: Human beings discovered numbers, the tools with which we make scientific predictions, over four thousand years ago. It took two thousand years before we could use those numbers to portray elementary geometric shapes like a triangle. It took two thousand more years before we could manipulate those same numbers to provide a useable, but still not totally accurate, description of gravity. Why, for heaven’s sake, would anyone think we should have a final answer to a monstrously difficult question like “What is justice?” when we don’t yet have a final reason for why our feet stick to the ground?

Relativism asserts its own universality as it proclaims the relativity of all other assertions. Every other sentence ever uttered or ever to be uttered is relative to some one circumstance or another … but not this one. That’s an awful lot to swallow and an amazing number of people have swallowed it.

A person may claim that relativism is true but he will never live his life as if it is true. In fact, he cannot live his life as if the truth is that there is no truth -- unless he wants to live a very short and very frustrating life. “You locked the keys in the car” is either true or false. If you want to go anywhere in your car you will figure out which one it is -- you will not argue that it is both or neither.

H/T: Stand Your Ground

Archbishop Chaput tells it like it is

God I love this man. Finally a bishop who speaks the truth in plain English!

“Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues. But too many Catholics just don’t really care. That’s the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn child. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste each other’s time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow ‘balanced out’ or excused by three other good social policies.”

(...)

“We need to stop over-counting our numbers, our influence, our institutions and our resources, because they’re not real. We can’t talk about following St. Paul [2009 is the year of St. Paul-- BBW) and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves and to God by claiming to ‘personally oppose’ some homicidal evil -- but then allowing it to be legal at the same time.”

For faithful Catholics, it's so hard to take the bullshit coming out of the mouths of bishops' conferences and lukewarm clergymen. The namby-pamby, Vatican II-style, limp-wristed, dull-as-dishwater statements that are so watered down, so full of nuance, clarification and subtleties, that these declarations lose all their power. The hierarchy is so concerned at being inoffensive-- especially towards the opposition. Because if you have opposition from the elites-- especially the academic elites-- then you have no credibility-- in their brainwashed minds. In a way, the clergy are what the Quebec separatists call "une gang de colonisés".-- People who have so deeply internalized the standards of the foreign elites-- that is, foreign to Catholicism-- that they express fear and loathing towards our true tradition.

And then what happens is that you get a bunch of useful idiots like the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good being the catholiques de service for the very culture that holds them in contempt. In racist language, they're nigger kings for the culture of death. All these academic and religious types who've taken over the intellectual, spiritual and pastoral structures of the Church, they think they're serving the Church, when they're really the tools of the culture that holds them in contempt. These needy pleasers cringe at the idea that some liberal might misjudge them according to the actual teachings of the Church. They want to appear tolerant, open-minded, intellectually honed and unharsh, thinking that being a true witness of Christ is to seem Christ-like and not actually be Christ-like in fearlessly affirming the Truth of the Church that he founded.

As the Archbishop puts it:

In fact, people who openly reject God or dismiss Christianity as obsolete are sometimes far more honest and far less discouraging than Catholics who claim to be faithful to the Church but directly reject her guidance by their words and actions.”

EXACTLY.

All these bloody clergy who fear being misjudged, yet claim to speak for the Church are not being honest or faithful. Have a bloody backbone! I'm all for being gentle, understanding, open to dialogue and so forth.

But not at the expense of being a pleaser. I will not give up one iota of my Catholic Faith to be considered "enlightened" and "pastorally sensitive" by this culture.

I want the clergy and basically all Catholics who don't have one to grow a spine.

The more we bullshit each other, the more we weaken the Church. Just state the truth plainly, politely if possible, bluntly if not.

It's very difficult to live as a faithful Catholic in this Church. Because we are called to fillial piety, that is, to be reverent and obedient towards the bishops and the priests.

But we know that there is a time and a place for all forthright honesty. I'm sure the frustration of faithful Catholics is bursting at the seams. You just want to tell off the whole gang of them. It's so plainly obvious to anyone who reads and follows the Catechism that what is being said and done in the Church is not faithful to Church teaching. But they're the ones with the PhD's, and you're just an uneducated "drone" so what do you know?

I just hope that Archbishop's message catches on, and that other bishops echo his sentiments. He's a modern-day prophet.


(I know, I usually don't allow such vulgar language, but sometimes the vulgar word is the best one, and no this is not permission to use vulgar language in the combox).

H/T: Thoughts and Ruminations

Vatican clarifies Pope Benedict XVI's abortion comments

Spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi says the church "has always allowed indirect abortions" when a pregnant woman receives life-saving medical care "that results in the death of the foetus."

I told you so.

Note to MSM: You can Google this stuff.

But watch this: they will not make any distinction between a D & E and a C-section. They are really shallow that way.

The more I read about this story, the more I think it was a set up. Not the pregnancy, mind you, just how it was handled.

It is being reported that that girl's family did not want the abortion, that the mother was manipulated into having one, and that the girl's life was not in danger.

And will feminists stand up in defense of the mother and her family? No. Of course not. How bloody convenient of them to exploit this situation to promote abortion.

Yay choice.

Brazillian Social Engineers Impose Their "Reproductive Justice" on Raped Girl and Family

Yay Pro-Choice!

Part One of a Two Part Series

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent

RECIFE, BRAZIL, March 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An international pro-abortion organization conspired with pro-abortion hospital staff to bring about the now famous abortion on a nine-year-old Brazilian girl, according to witnesses.

LifeSiteNews has also learned that, contrary to the claims repeated in Brazil's mainstream media, the hospital where she was originally admitted has publicly acknowledged that her life was not in danger at the time the abortion was performed.

The abortion, which drew international media attention when the local archbishop excommunicated the participants, was carried out after it was learned that an unnamed child was pregnant with twins after having been raped by her stepfather over several years. He confessed to the crime and is now in custody.

Although fellow Brazilian bishops and even a Vatican official have distanced themselves from the excommunication, accounts from witnesses and public statements made to the media indicate that the reasons given to justify the abortion are far from accurate.

According to Fr. Edson Rodrigues, a Catholic priest from the child's hometown of Alagoinha was present during much of the ordeal, the girl's parents both clearly stated their opposition to abortion in general and the abortion in particular proposed for their own child. However, after the child was admitted to the Institute of Children's Medicine of Pernambuco (IMIP), she and her mother were isolated by hospital staff, who declared that an abortion was necessary to save her daughter's life.

On February 28, "we arrived at the IMIP around 3 pm," writes Rodrigues in a statement on the website of his home diocese of Pesqueira. We went up to the fourth floor where the child and her mother were in an isolated room. The access to the room was restricted, requiring special authorization."

"Members of the Tutelary Council [Brazil's child protective services] barely had access to the room. Other than they, people linked to the hospital. That being the situation the councilors Jeanne Oilveira, of Recife, and Maria Jose Gomes of our city had access to the reserved area," continues Rodrigues.

"With the prohibition of access to the room where the child was, I found myself with the mother there in the corridor. Profoundly and visibly shaken by the situation, she explained to me that she had signed 'some papers over there'. The mother is illiterate and doesn't sign her name, having been called to place her fingerprints on the documents in question."

"I asked her about her thinking regarding abortion. Moved by a maternal sentiment marked by extreme concern for the child, she told me about her unfavorable position towards carrying out an abortion. This was also heard by Robson Jose de Carvalho, a member of our parochial council who accompanied us that day to the hospital...we went out, therefore, from the IMIP with a firm conviction that the mother of the child had showed herself to be completely unfavorable towards the abortion of her grandchildren, even stating that 'no one has the right to kill anyone, only God.'"

The following Monday Fr. Rodrigues arrived with the girl's father, who had clearly stated his opposition to an abortion, and two tutelary counselors. The group attempted to make their way to the fourth floor to visit the mother and child, but were stopped.

Fr. Rodrigues writes that "when we arrived at the first floor, a functionary of IMIP interrupted our trip and asked us to leave the elevator and go to the Social Assistance area in another building. Arriving there we were received by a young social assistant named Karolina Rodrigues."

Fr. Rodrigues notes that, despite the fact that the father had not consented to an abortion, the social assistant informed the group that "based on the consent signed by the mother of the girl in favor of abortion, the medical procedures must be carried out by the IMIP within a few days. Without understanding well what was happening, I questioned the assistant about the legal basis for this. Although she wasn't a doctor, she gave us a rather difficult diagnosis of the child, according to her, based on medical opinion, although nothing had been given us in writing."

After discovering that the father was present, the social assistant insisted on speaking to him alone, without the presence of Fr. Rodrigues or the two tutelary counselors, according to Rodrigues. After 25 minutes of conversation, the father changed his mind, Rodrigues says. He states that the father later told him that he had been informed that without the abortion, his daughter would die, and so it was better to abort the unborn twins.

Part two will appear Monday

---

This sounds to me like some social engineers at the Brazillian Child Protection Services conspired with some feminists to get this girl an abortion because they thought it was in the best interest of the child.

The report gives the impression that the mother did not seem to know exactly what was going on, and that the Priest was necessary to advocate on behalf the family.

This sounds like the government wanted this abortion, not the family.

And if this is the case (we'll have to see how this turns out in part two) I believe that the mother's excommunication should be lifted. I think if she was that confused and that distraught over the prospect of her daughter dying, and that she really didn't go out of her way to get an abortion, I think some mercy should be shown to her. But we will have to see what the second part of this story is.

I look forward to the second part. I hope pro-lifers read and propagate this story.

Humour: Photoshopped Animals

Creepy, but funny

H/T:ibored.

VIDEO: Sarah Palin on Special Olympics

In light of Obama's comment on Special Olympics, I thought it might be a propos to post this video of her putting Special Olympics in perspective.



H/T: Island Breezes

STUDY: Contraceptive Counselling after Abortion Doesn't Work

And then they wonder: "why all the repeats"?

CONCLUSION: There was no evidence indicating that contraceptive counselling is effective in increasing acceptance and use of contraceptive methods after an abortion.

Obama on His Bowling Skills: 'Like the Special Olympics'

President, Already Under Attack on Issues, Makes Questionable Quip on 'The Tonight Show'

But he'll get a pass for his politically incorrect remarks because he's a liberal.

Who are these "Vatican Insiders" criticizing the pope? #catholic

Vatican insiders declare the Pope a 'disaster'

Another liberal paper smearing a conservative figure with biased anonymous "insider" comments.

Who are these insiders? The woman who cleans the toilets or the guy who takes out the trash?

NOT ONE SOURCE IS NAMED.

Note to liberal media: This torpedoes your credibility.

What's really a disaster is the religiously illiterate media who keep making ignorant comments about the Catholic faith, and their own false reporting is the big FAIL.

How convenient for the liberal media to get it wrong, and then point fingers at the pope for being a communications disaster.

I will grant that the Vatican needs help.

But Pope John Paul II was very astute, and the liberal media still smeared him.

Why? Because the pope is a figure liberals love to hate.

The pope could have the best PR firm money can buy, and the media would still dump on him.

Because the pope's message is unpopular with liberal media elites.

The liberal media will not admit this, but this is what it boils down to.

My advice to the pope would be to hire an internet PR guy-- a good one. Goodness knows they're all over Twitter. Then be even more bold.

Because really, we need the voice of a prophet. Prophets are always communications disasters. You cannot be popular with people who are actively opposing you.

Look at the baby Canadian feminists say should not have had the right to life in the womb

When feminists defend late-term abortion, they assure us that only "seriously handicapped" babies are aborted. You know, babies with anencephaly or grossly deformed features.

No viable babies are ever aborted in Canada. Just ones who are going to die anyway.

Well guess what? They're wrong.

This story focuses on the wrongdoing of a Catholic priest who advises women to terminate prematurely in the face of handicapped babies.

While this is a great scandal in the Church, let's not forget who made it possible for that baby to have no rights in the womb.

Canadian feminists.

That baby could have been killed at 23 weeks gestation. But so what? In the words of Joyce Arthuer "fetuses are not that imporant." That about sums up the feminist attitude.

If fetuses have rights, it would create a "conflict of interest." Babies like Jayla might "infringe" on the mother's rights and have to be saved at the expense of the mother's wishes. A woman's autonomy is the only thing that matters. A human life must be allowed to be sacrificed for this all-important feminist power.

And if little Jayla had to die because of the mother's wishes, the feminist attitude is: tough luck Jayla! You have to die! You are sub-human and have no rights and do not deserve them.

Luckily, Jayla's mother was smart and consulted a number of authorities, and Jayla is alive today, no thanks to feminists.

And how is the baby doing? Mrs. Gillian de Souza, her mother reports:

Her baby Jayla is now four months old and could be heard cooing in the background as Mrs. DeSouza was interviewed. Gillian has become an expert on her daughter's triple X syndrome and heart defects, and uses and explains in detail the terminology involved in the condition. Jayla is doing fairly well after one surgery, with another scheduled. Jayla is neither on a feeding tube nor a ventilator. She is sleeping and eating well, but is having trouble gaining weight.

A complication after birth led to treatment for meningitis, which caused the baby to become profoundly deaf - another blow to the parents. But Gillian remains upbeat, noting that her baby is a candidate for cochlear implants to deal with the deafness.

This is the baby that could have been sacrificed on the alter of feminist power. This is why I refer to it as "feminist supremacy." Little Jayla's rights did not matter in the womb, only feminist rights did.

There could be two or three hundred dead babies like Jayla every year.

But since they're only less than one per cent of all abortions, they don't matter. What's a human life when the principle of abortion on demand is at stake? If viable second- and third- trimester handicapped babies have to die, oh well. There's no reason to put restrictions on late-term abortions. Only women matter. There's no room for compassion and legal protection for unborn children.

And people wonder why I hate feminism. People say that all I care about are fetuses. Except that as a woman I obviously care about myself and my gender.

All feminists care about are women (well actually, socially liberal women and other politically correct minorities, but that's another blogpost). Women who already have rights and power. As opposed to the unborn who have no rights and no power.

Update on the comments

Comments are now being moderated for the rest of the week. Have a nice break :)

VIDEO: The Differences Between Men and Women

H/T: Manly's Republic.

Stagelift Gives Birth to the Ficki

I'm glad he chose birth:

a) Choose someone in blogdom. Anyone. It can be a blogger, or a regular correspondent without a blog.

b) Write a one-paragraph fictional sketch that sums them up. Because it’s fictional, we’ll refer to it as a “Ficki”.

c) The only rules are that you can’t do yourself, and that your Ficki may contain NO correct factual information, as far as you know. (Peter may actually BE a retired beekeeper, for all I know). It has to be fiction.

d) If you do a blogger, send them a note to let them know they’ve been fickied, and link them back to this thread so they can discover their inner essence as seen by the world.

SUZANNE. She was born into a catholic family in Sarnia, the eldest of 14 children. At an early age Sandy, she later changed it to Suzanne, decided to move to Ottawa to earn her keep. And earn she did. She became the go-to ‘girl’ for all the elite power brokers there. Although the men in her life were generous, and she had become a wealthy women, she was becoming a shallow superficial shadow of her former self. After much agonizing over where her life should lead, she eventually moved to Niagara Falls to study rainbows.

March Break Hiatus

Next week is the March Break in my neck of the woods. I will be taking time off from the blog to travel with my family. I'll be back soon.

In the meanwhile, scroll down and check the blogs in the sidebar. There's often good stuff.

Also check out: SoConBlogs.com and Opinions Canada.

Yes, a fetus is a human being

Some people say that a fetus is not a human being because he doesn't look like one. Manly's Republic has an answer for that:

Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant. A frog is a frog. Then again, a tadpole is a tadpole. But is a tadpole a frog? Some folks would argue not: The tadpole has no lungs; it has gills. It has no legs; it has a tail. It looks and acts just like a fish. It can’t be a frog, can it? Well, it depends upon how you define the frog organism.

May we identify an organism as a frog purely on the basis of its morphology (physical form)? The biologist will say no. Three criteria are necessary for biological identification and morphology is only one of them. Physiology and genomics are the other two.

The biologist will not hesitate to affirm that the tadpole is, indeed, a frog. The living organism we call “frog” (Rana catabiensis) undergoes profound morphological and physiological changes in the course of its lifecycle. Although these changes are radical, the genetic code - the DNA blueprint that defines this particular organism - never changes.

The biologist will tell you that a frog is a frog from the instant it first functions as an independent organism, regardless of the form it takes during the course of its development. It will be nothing other than a frog when it dies. An organism is never identified purely on the basis of its morphological or physiological state at any given point in its lifecycle. It would be like declaring the benchmark of life for the butterfly organism is the presence of wings and antennae and then, after examining the caterpillar, pronouncing that, because it has neither wings nor antennae, it is neither living nor a butterfly, despite the fact that it is a living organism with the genome of the butterfly and, if it is not killed before it completes its metamorphosis, will become nothing other than a butterfly.

The same thing applies to the unborn. He may not have a face. Or limbs. Or a developed brain. Or any features of a born human being.He is still a human being, biologically speaking.

VIDEO: Killing Girls (MUST SEE but Rated R!)

Jill Stanek:

The primary setting of "Killing Girls" is the Center for Family Planning and Reproduction in St Petersburg, a large, old hospital where babies are delivered on one floor and aborted on the next. Mothers recover together.

Late-term abortions are common in Russia. In a country where the film tells us 80 percent of women abort an average of two to 10 times, older girls tell younger girls to wait until after 20 weeks to abort because, they say, it is better for the female body to have an induced abortion than surgical abortion. The girls worry about becoming sterile. Very messed up. This despite the fact abortions are free up to 12 weeks.

"Killing Girls" tracks the labor-induction abortions of several teens. The name of the movie is a play on words, because as Irish director David Kinsella wrote me, "All the girls I filmed gave birth to girls." By "gave birth" Kinsella meant aborting by labor induction, except one who changed her mind and went on to deliver a full-term girl.

I've blogged about this documentary before. I'm so thrilled that it's available for download and through purchase of a DVD.

I wouldn't wish a prostaglandin abortion on my worst enemy.

UPDATE: March 12th 10:20 pm

The creator of the movie, David Kinsella, was very upset that I labelled his movie "Rated R".

It is not Rated "R" by the official body that authorizes such ratings.

I apologize if I caused any confusion.

I simply meant to imply that there are some very hard scenes that you might not want to watch with the kids. That's all I meant by that title.

David mentions that he also has a version which has that "hard sequences" removed.

Hey! Fred Phelps Has a Muslim Countpart!

Muslim Preacher Mocks Fallen British Soldiers After Homecoming Parade Protest

British officials condemned Tuesday's protests, where 200 troops were met with hate-filled cheers and signs reading, "Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra," and "Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists."

All that was missing was a "God hates Anglians" sign.

The New American Catholic Altar

H/T: Thoughts and Ruminations

Poor people aren't that poor

If you use drugs, you're not that poor.

If you smoke or drink beer, you're not that poor.

If you go out to the bars, you're not that poor.

If you have cable, a computer and/or a cell phone, you're not that poor.

If you drive a car, you're not that poor.

If you own a pet, you're not that poor.

If your family eats three meals a day and manages to pay the rent, you're not that poor.

We have to really confront what poverty is.

The neighbourhood where I live is in what is supposed to be a relatively "depressed area" with a lot of renters, immigrants and single moms. Everywhere you look, there are satellite dishes, minivans, pick-up trucks, SUV's, cigarette butts and dog shit. Sometimes, on summer nights, the odor of marijuana is so overpowering, I can still smell it even with the doors and windows closed.

I remember my former neighbours used to have her two-fours driven to her house by one of those beer delivery services. Sure, she was a single mom who lived with a boyfriend and a housemate to pay expenses. But she still had money for her two-fours and her dog.

I don't begrudge people for owning satellite dishes, SUV's and dogs. I'm pissed off about the marijuana, but all would be forgiven if I didn't have to smell it.

Where I get a little huffy is the proposition that the people around me are poor. Do they have less than many people? Sure. They don't have the house in the suburbs, or the pension plan, or the three weeks vacation, etc.

But they have a good chunk of that lifestyle. There aren't too many people in this country who go without cable or internet. There aren't too many people who don't have a car. There are people who are officially unemployed, but scrape together a nice living between their government cheques and under-the-table work and help from families. Bleeding-heart liberals shouldn't be so shocked. Having grandparents is something of a cash cow. Even "poor" grandmas splurge on their grandkids buying the things they think these children will need to help out the "poor" parents.

In Canada, the difference between "poor" and "not-poor" rests on the amount of disposable income one possesses. The "poor" are those who do not have a lot of disposable income. Not people who lack the necessities. People who have the necessitites but have to scrimp to break even at the end of the month are the poor.

I think that left-leaning people are looking to rescue or be rescued. If you're sixteen, you don't know how to save for university, you don't know how you'll get a job (because your parents are welfare bums) free university tuition makes a heck of a lot of sense to you. If you're some elite university prof who sees the "pain" of students struggling with debt (even after they spend Spring Break in Florida), calling for tuition reform may make a lot of sense to you, because good people want to help others, and poor students in debt are obviously in need of help.

Bad people are people like me who expect others to take care of themselves.

The reason poor people are "poor" is not because of our economic system. It is not because of a lack of government programs. It is mostly because people do not know how to take care of themselves and their money.

Poor people tend to be those who have not developed the work skills, social capital (i.e. networks), the habits, attitudes and values that lead one to transcend the underclass lifestyle.

Sometimes their behaviour results from pure stupidity. Like the people who spend their money on beer and cigarettes. They gotta know that their money is going to waste.

Somtimes it's just ignorance. There are people who grow up in families where life management skills are not valued, or else people just don't know how to obtain them.

But many poor people feel entitled to their creature comforts AND support from the government, because they expect to have as much as anyone else. In some sense, who could blame them? Socialist elites give them the impression that a middle-class lifestyle is their God-given right, and if the government doesn't provide it for them, then that's a form of inequality.

It's really too bad though, that most of these people may never understand that they do not need to rely on the political situation to change in order for them to improve their economic circumstances. If people simply decided that to get themselves out of "poverty" through their own power-- by stopping the beer, cigarettes, consumer debt, impulse shopping, many of them would make significant progress.

There are a small number of people who are truly poor through no fault of their own. But the vast majority of us are not doing too badly. Unfortunately, government programs don't aim for the small numbers who are truly poor. They subsidize the "poverty" and fuel the sense of entitlement for taxpayer money, and in effect, deprive them of the sense of empowerment from making it on their own. It's too bad that liberalism keeps pushing that they can't make it on their own without the government, that it's the system that keeps them down and that they're powerless to control their fate. But the lessons needed to take control of one's life so deeply contradict the current zeitgeist that it's a Herculean task to try to correct these attitudes and behaviours.

For instance, if you don't want to be a single mom, don't have sex outside of marriage. Wait until marriage to have children. Do not live "common law". Get married.

Or: never buy anything on credit unless it's a house or a car (something that can be re-sold and is of great value) and try to pay little or no interest.

Or: settle for those brands and items that you can afford now. If you don't need it, don't buy it.

Or: Save money in the bank, so that if an emergency comes up (like your kid needs new glasses) you'll be prepared.

And so on.

If people did these things, they wouldn't be in a mess.

But people have a sense of entitlement nowadays. It's the entitlement mentality that leads to "poverty", not capitalism.


Inspiration

Abortion mills: just as crappy as in the Pre-Roe era.

Nebraska Abortionist Ordered to Close Immediately for Operating Illegally

BELLEVUE, NE, March 10, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bellevue, NE, abortionist LeRoy Carhart was ordered to close his abortion facility yesterday until his building passes inspection and he obtains an occupancy permit. Carhart has been illegally operating in his fire-damaged abortion mill since Saturday.

(...)

Larry Donlan, Director of Rescue the Heartland, reported Carhart to the City of Bellevue yesterday morning. It was confirmed to Donlan that Carhart had no current occupancy permit and that he had been ordered to shut down his abortion business until it would be properly inspected.

Carhart's abortion clinic was damaged in an accidental fire in January. He reopened on Saturday, with a generator apparently providing electricity for his surgeries, despite lacking the proper permits.

Donlan described the exterior of the dilapidated building as being surrounded by rusted-out vehicles and other junk, including the generator.

"Connected to the mill by a long extension cord sat a generator that purred away all morning, making one question if they even had electricity. I've often wondered how anyone could patronize such a junk yard posing as a 'health clinic,'" said Donlan.

Legalization was supposed to shut down these backstreet butchers, you know, the guys that supposedly caused the 50 000 annual deaths by abortion.

Oh, and Leroy Carhart, he performs these:



And the feminists support him 100%.

VIDEO: Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust

A Message to Catholic Bishops Who Won't Deny Communion to Pro-Abort Pols

Why Archbishop Wuerl of Washington must deny Communion to pro-abort politicians in DC:

Correct me if I am wrong, but what some bishops don’t get or refuse to understand is the impact of the politician’s reception of the Eucharist to the faith community. The politician who defies the bishops’ and pope’s teaching, guidance and orders about defending life goes and receives the Communion as though she did nothing wrong or was unaware of any wrongdoing scandalizes the community.

There is a pastoral approach to help the politician by tolerating that until she sees the light. But what about the pastoral approach to the faithful who are confused and scandalized into wrongdoing. They would think, “The bishop allows her to receive communion even if she supports abortion, so abortion might not be that bad. Then, they go and procure it themselves or advise others of the moral relativity based on that praxis. And all this from the perception that the local bishop gave when he relegated the duty of spiritual guidance to another bishop and worse when he neglected his pastoral responsibility to control scandal in his local faith community.

H/T: Pro Ecclesia

Victims of Botched "Reproductive Justice"

Reproductive Justice. Brought to you by the feminists of the world:

Williams recalls grabbing the armrests of her chair and elevating herself to a squatting position, heels at the edges of her seat. The receptionist and staff kept telling her to sit down and close her legs, but she couldn’t comply. “There was just no stopping it,” she said.

Williams said she delivered her baby, Shanice, onto the recliner almost immediately after squatting. First amniotic fluid spilled out, then the baby dropped onto the cushion.

“When I saw that happen, I jumped off the chair and turned away, facing the wall,” Williams said.

Shanice’s body slid on the blood and amniotic fluids into the rear corner of the recliner because she was still attached to Williams by the umbilical cord. “When I jumped off I pulled her like into the back of the chair because she was still attached,” she said.

Well woohoo. There's female autonomy and empowerment for you. The kid is slithering on the floor, the product of "reproductive justice", the mother is in shock, and the staff is freaking because they don't know how to deal with non-dead babies. Live birth is a "dreaded complication" in these scenarios. Death is the goal.

Thank you feminists of the world for making this death scene possible. Couldn't have done it without you.

The baby is born and dies on the floor, she is worthy of sympathy.

Had she died a minute earlier in the womb, well tough luck kid! You deserve no rights if you're deemed unwanted.

According to the lawsuit and Williams’ recollection, Gonzalez, the clinic’s owner, who has no health care licensing, came into the waiting room, cut the umbilical cord, and scooped Shanice’s body into a red biohazard bag, sealed it and tossed it into a trash can.

Life is cheap in an abortion clinic. Dead babies are biohazardhous waste material.

She does recall the most startling part: Her 23-week-old pregnancy looked like an actual baby.

“They never said anything to me that would make me think it was a baby. They never said anything like baby, fetus. Nothing. They only said things like ‘termination’ and ‘pregnancy’ and ‘termination of pregnancy,’” she said. “They cheated me because they didn’t tell me everything and the doctor wasn’t there.”

But don't pass laws to make abortion providers show ultrasounds to their patients because that might...actually inform women! Abortion providers can be trusted to speak the truth....

NOT!

She said the staff’s reaction to the live birth made her feel disrespected. “They tried to make it look like this was my fault. Like I asked for this. … They wouldn’t admit to me the whole time something went wrong,” she said. “I feel like they treated me like nothing, like a nobody.”

The mistake she made was trusting these people. This all goes to show that there needs to be informed consent laws to lay down the bare facts about abortion: that it kills a human being. And also to show that prospective mother who it is that the abortion is about to kill.

But that would be way too honest for feminists. Women cannot be empowered with knowledge-- it would turn back the clock on their agenda!

True Liberation

"Overheard" on Twitter:

the washing machine did more to liberate women than the pill and abortion...so true

Absolutely.

UPDATE: It seems that that line has a pedigree:

Leave it to the Vatican to find a unique way to celebrate Sunday's International Women’s Day, by championing the washing machine as the greatest instrument of women's liberation in the 20th century.

“The Washing Machine and the Liberation of Women - Put in the Detergent, Close the Lid and Relax,” read the headline in the semi-official Vatican newspaper, l’Osservatore Romano, reports Reuters.

“What in the 20th century did more to liberate Western women? The debate is heated. Some say the pill, some say abortion rights and some the right to work outside the home. Some, however, dare to go further: the washing machine.”

Liberal Party Planning to Court the Conservative Christian Vote?

Brian Lilley:

Now comes perhaps the more shocking news, the Liberals, under Michael Ignatieff, are reaching out to religious voters.

Specifically, the Liberals are planning to try to reconnect with to Evangelical Christians, MP John McKay is the man heading up the effort. Today Evangelicals are a group mostly thought of in terms of Republican support in the United States, yet at one point they did vote for Liberal MPs, especially in Ontario.

(...)

The question for the Liberals now becomes what will be on offer? Same-sex marriage is a dead issue in Canadian politics and abortion is something none of the party leaders wish to touch, except to express support for the status quo.(...)Which party is the most compassionate to the downtrodden here at home and in the developing world during a time of economic uncertainty? I’ll bet Michael Ignatieff sees that as the ticket to winning back this particular voting block.

Why the heck would religious right voters abandon the Conservatives for something that has always existed in the Liberal Party, i.e. liberalism?

If religious right voters had wanted liberalism, they would have voted liberal.

Religious right voters are looking for a party to take on social conservative values.

To those who might be tempted to vote for a "preferential option for the poor" instead of social conservative values: remember that the NDP and the Liberals (and the Mulroney conservatives) are the people who brought you the moral decay of our time.

The best predictor of future results is past results. If the Liberal Party wants so-con voters, it'd better produce some so-con policy.

About the Catholic Church and its reaction to the abortion of that Brazilian rape victim

Many people are outraged that the Vatican backs the excommunication of the mother of the girl in Brazil who was raped, and the doctor who performed the abortion.

There are many details that people do not seem to know or care about.

First off, the issue is not whether the raped girl has a right to life. Of course the girl could have the pregnancy terminated if her life was in danger.

The Church does not dispute that.

Let me repeat.

The Church recognizes, through the theory of Double Effect, that when the pregnant woman's life is in danger, the pregnancy can be terminated PROVIDING there is no alternative, and that no direct killing or any other evil is performed on the fetus.

In other words, the pregnant girls' unborn twins could have been delivered to save the life of the mother.

Where the Church disagrees with abortion proponents is the method of abortion.

The Church would have had no issue with saving the life of the pregnant girl by delivering the fetuses intact and non-euthanized.

The Church believes that it is permissible in some situations to allow human beings to die. But it is never acceptable to deliberately attack the physical integrity of any human being with the intent of causing death. In other words, it is acceptable to let nature its course-- that is, allow the fetuses to die once delivered-- but it is never okay to provoke death.

But abortion proponents do not see it that way.

The abortion proponents wanted the unborn twins dead.

Let me re-state it: they didn't just want the girl to be free of a pregnancy that might have killed her. They wanted those fetuses dead.

Why?

Because those twins are the product of rape.

Rape is a horrific sin. But just because the pregnant woman was the victim of rape does not mean that the unborn children should suffer for the actions of the father.

That is the whole purpose of abortion. These unborn babies were considered undeserving of love by the mother and the adults in her family by virtue of the fact that those twins were conceived in rape. Therefore, they had to die. They were not equal to unborn babies conceived through love. They were conceived in rape, therefore, they were worthy of being killed.

The Church wants as many as possible to live. It's not always possible-- pregnancies are sometimes lethal to the mother, and to save the mother, a termination is necessary. But the pregnancy termination does not have to result in a dead baby.

Abortion always does.

The abortionist would have probably performed a D & E on the pregnant girl. Let's take a close hard look at what a D and E involves:




This is a video that describes the procedure:



Now LOOK at the medical diagram. Don't ignore it. Look at what would have been done to unborn children-- yes, I know picture is of a 23-week fetus, and the aborted twins were at about 16 weeks. It's still a gruesome procedure. Ripping off arms? Crushing skulls? That's considered humane in this day and age? That's what feminists are lobbying for?

This procedure is clearly gruesome and disrespectful of the unborn child. There is no reason why those unborn children could not have been delivered intact, without feticide.

But that's not what this is about. This is a PR campaign to ge Brazil to legalize abortion. The abortion lobby is intensely pressuring Latin American countries to legalize killing its unborn citizens.

The abortion lobby is in effect operating an abortion imperialism because Latin America generally recognizes the right to life of ALL human beings, not just born ones.

Feminists have zero compassion for the unborn children who must die. They have zero compassion for the fact that these babies have to be chopped up, as opposed to just being delivered. They won't even allow for that dignity. They may even been suffering, but that is of no concern to them. Their compassion is limited to the born, not to the unborn.

And as a last point. The reason why the mother and the abortionist were excommunicated and not the father is that the evil of rape is obvious. The evil of abortion is not as the victim is hidden, and the mothers are not always aware of what occurs during an abortion. The excommunication is meant to underscore that the Church is serious about protecting human life-- ALL human life, including those of the unborn.

Vatican warns ICANN to avoid religious Top Level Domain Names

The Pope has called on ICANN to keep religion out of the domain name system.

The Vatican warned the internet address-making body of the “perils” of allowing new internet domains such as “.catholic, .anglican, .orthodox, .hindu, .islam, .muslim, [and] .buddhist”.

CANN, frequently accused of mission creep, could find itself having to decide who gets to represent an entire religion on the internet, His Holiness pointed out, in a letter from Monsignor Carlo Maria Polvani.

Religion-themed domains could provoke “bitter disputes” that would force ICANN into “recognizing to a particular group or to a specific organization the legitimacy to represent a given religious tradition,” Polvani told outgoing ICANN chief Paul Twomey.

source

H/T The Curt Jester

Man Driving to Abortion Clinic Runs Over Pro-Lifer, then Persuaded by Victim's Wife Not to Abort

This story is so incredibly, I'm going to post it in full. Just unbelievable...

By Kathleen Gilbert

CHERRY HILL, New Jersey, March 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A lone sidewalk counselor at a Cherry Hill abortion center is suffering from horrifying injuries after a young man driving his pregnant wife to the abortuary reportedly struck the elderly counselor and ran him over. But the victim's wife says that the event probably saved a life, as she believes she was able to persuade the man afterwards not to abort his child.

The incident took place Saturday morning at the South Jersey Women's Center on Haddonfield Road. George Krail was reportedly walking toward the clinic driveway to offer literature as the car approached, when the driver apparently deliberately ran into and over Krail, crushing and twisting his leg. The initial collision was so severe it is said to have broken several of Krail's ribs.

Krail was taken to Cooper Hospital in Camden, where he is stable but continues to await surgery as of Saturday evening.

When asked George's condition, his wife Tina told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that "George is fine spiritually, his leg's really messed up ... his leg is pointing backwards."

Mrs. Krail, who is a veteran pro-life protester along with her husband, went on to say that the bizarre event "was orchestrated by the Lord."

Krail says her husband was suddenly prompted to witness at the local abortion mill this morning after she showed him the testimony of an abortion survivor she found on a pro-life blog.

Some time after George left, Mrs. Krail received a call from him asking for help. "Tina, I'm hurt - someone ran me over. My leg's turned around Tina, come right away," George reportedly told his wife. According to George's testimony, the man had evidently made no attempt to brake.

Police arrived following George's 911 call and were able to question the driver. No one witnessed the incident except for the abortion mill's surveillance camera, which is now in police custody. The driver is not currently held by police.

Tina, who was badly shaken, said she then had a chance to confront the man along with his pregnant wife.

"I thought, 'What would Jesus do?" She told LSN. "So I walked over and I said, "Hon, I'd like to talk to you. I forgive you for hitting my husband.' And he said, 'Oh, I'm so sorry,' and his whole face just changed.

"Then I said: 'I want you to look at me in the eyes. I've been where you're at, and I can tell you my husband also forgives you, and he probably wants me to tell you that if one broken leg would save your child, he would do it over again.

"You should know that God has something in store mighty for you, and you should take this as a sign from God.' And he said, 'I know, I know. And they never went in [the abortion mill]."

She recalled that she embraced both and exhorted them to "think about this child now."

"This is how important this child is,'" she said.

Asked by LifeSiteNews whether they had been participating in the 40 Days for Life vigil, Tina replied cheerfully, "We've done it [pro-life activism] for the last twenty years. Yeah, it's been our life - and this'll probably be our death too. What's our life worth anyway?"

Jaw-dropping. Just wow.