Canadian Catholic Bishops Clears Development and Peace of Allegations LifesiteNews Never Made

You had to know this was coming. In light of the scandal of D & P funding pro-abortion groups, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued its report of their investigation into the affair.

Let me say: I am not impressed.

The report begins by talking about the allegations of LifesiteNews. But never species what those allegations were.

Anybody who has a passing interest in this scandal knows that Lifesite's beef has been that Development and Peace has been funding groups that engage in abortion advocacy.

Full stop.

But what do the bishops conclude:

In conclusion of our inquiry regarding the Mexican Episcopal Conference and the five non-governmental organizations in question, we believe the allegations by Lifesite News – that financial assistance by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) aided projects related to the promotion of abortion – are not founded on the facts.

As far as I know, Lifesite has never made any accusations with regards to funding pro-abortion projects.

I want to make some snarky remark about how convenient it was for the bishops to overlook that fact. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

The allegation was that Development and Peace funded groups that engaged in advocacy for abortion.

I have a hunch that some bishops think it's okay to give money to groups that work towards abortion, based on the legalism that the money is not going towards abortion itself.

The report says:

We questioned their leadership for considerable time, and confronted them with the allegations and accusations we had heard, but did not find any evidence that they have been implicated in promoting abortion.

And there were no details about this. Again, very convenient. Who did they talk to? What groups? What individuals?

It seems the bishops expect to be believed on their word.

Not that I would think a bishop would lie. But bishops can be deceived. Or they can put a positive spin (in their minds) on a negative situation.

In light of the seriousness of the allegations, if there were no substance to them, you would think the bishops would be anxious to publish the details of those conversations, as any in-depth investigative report would. In that sense, this report is rather incomplete.

The report says:

We make an urgent appeal to the leadership of Lifesite News that it establish an open and fruitful dialogue with Canadian Catholic groups. We are convinced that when a group makes allegations, accusations and denunciations against another, this can bring nothing positive to our Church and is a counter-witness to that Gospel spirit that should guide all Christians. Negative actions of this kind encourage suspicion, scandal and division in the Church. We also hope there will be a means for frank and transparent dialogue between Lifesite and the Bishops of Canada. We know our brother Bishops share this concern for unity and mutual respect which should be characteristic of the Catholic Church in our country

In the Catholic Church, everyone should be on the same page when it comes to the right to life.

But over and again, the bishops of the Church and social justice groups have been less than open and forthcoming in their support for the equality of the unborn child.

There are a few Canadian bishops who are strong in their support for the unborn. But in some dioceses, the silence on right to life issues is deafening.

I'd like to put to the question to the bishops individually: do you believe in the equality of the unborn child, and do you believe that unborn children should be legally recognized in Canada, and legally protected from abortion?

Let's bring it all out in the open, because I really hate conversations where we're all trying to be polite to not say what everyone is thinking and we dance around the question: the social justice Catholics do not believe in fetal rights.

We've all seen the lefty Catholics who won't speak up for the unborn, who, in some scandalous cases, will SUPPORT legal abortions.

This report has the looks of a Public Relations exercise to make the Vatican happy and to comfort suspicious and naive church bench warmers who, of course, do not want their money to go to abortion, and will believe the bishops on their word, because of course the bishops are all good and well-intentioned people (and I'm not saying they're not) and if they're good and well-intentioned, for a lot of people, that's enough to absolve the clergy of any wrongdoing and any open, explicit and concrete support for fetal rights.

Perhaps the social justice crowd at the top of the hierarchy will come and say what they're really thinking: that pro-life Catholics are a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists. We know the lefty laypeople already say it and say it to our faces. Perhaps the upper echelons of the clergy will have the courage of their convictions.

Somehow I doubt it. They must know, deep down, that pro-life Catholics are only following what the Pope and the Magisterium says about the Right to Life.

And, when all is said and done, maybe the truth will come out about the Canadian clergy:

Those who support the Winnipeg Statement are the same bishops who have accepted proportionalism. And proportionalism is the same philosophical error now being used to justify partnering with D&P’s pro-abortion partners, not to mention the soft abortion policy of St. Joseph’s hospital in London, Ontario.

I am so sick and tired of the BS in the Church. Let's just all get it out folks. You want dialogue Your Graces, I would love to have one, but not the kind we all speak in euphemisms and don't say what we really think. That's been going on long enough. Let's just tell it like it is. And we'll bring it Rome. I'm pretty confident which side the Vatican will take in all this.

Michael Jackson speaks of his religious upbringing

Yes, yes, it's the obligatory Michael Jackson post.

You can sure get a lot of insight into his mind when you read this. Not that you really needed it. Still, I just thought it was interesting. It's from the year 2000.

And as the standard disclaimer goes, publication does not signify endorsement.

But what I wanted more than anything was to be ordinary. So, in my world, the Sabbath was the day I was able to step away from my unique life and glimpse the everyday.

Sundays were my day for "Pioneering," the term used for the missionary work that Jehovah's Witnesses do. We would spend the day in the suburbs of Southern California, going door to door or making the rounds of a shopping mall, distributing our Watchtower magazine. I continued my pioneering work for years and years after my career had been launched.

Here's the thing. The ordinary was "fascinating" to him, but he lived anything by an ordinary life. Even the child-like world he tried to create was the furthest thing from "ordinary."

The Winner of the World's Ugliest Dog Contest

Pabst, a boxer-mix rescued from a shelter by Miles Egstad of Citrus Heights, Calif., won the annual contest on Friday at the Sonoma-Marin Fair in Northern California.

Pretty ugly, but there's gotta be uglier out there. He's ugly in a symmetric way-- no missing eyes, teeth, no freakish malformations.

He looks like he could be in a movie. He's what they call "t.v. ugly" :)

Björn from ABBA: You shouldn't religiously indoctrinate kids

Bjorn:

Nobody should have to form an opinion on matters of such weight before they are ready to size up the arguments. Above all, children should be kept away from anything that bears even the slightest whiff of indoctrination. In fact, freedom from indoctrination ought to be a basic human right for all children.

A religious education makes it more difficult for children to form their own views on the world. It puts obstacles in their way that not all are capable of overcoming.

What a boneheaded and prejudiced opinion.

If children could not have an opinion on things before they were able to size up arguments, they wouldn't have an opinion on anything.

I remember when I was ten years old, I had a lot of opinions on politics. In fact, at that age, I engaged in my first act of activism. I wrote to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to tell him not to de-index old-age pensions. I knew what inflation was. And I knew what de-index meant. And I knew what the consequences would be-- old people would get an increase less than the rate of inflation and become relatively poorer, when they were already hard up to begin with.

But I didn't have all the facts. I knew nothing about the debt or the deficit. Or fiscal solvency. Or paying taxes or CPP contributions. I just knew the "right result".

So. Should kids stop having opinions because they don't have the means to understand the facts or learn the arguments?

I don't think so.

Should their parents stop telling them what they think is right?

Wouldn't the parents be negligent in their duties if they did?

Here's the truth.

Kids are immature and ignorant.

For that reason they sometimes need to be told what to think. And parents should tell them.

(That's not to say that there is no room for some independent thought, but independent thought does not preclude being told.)

The real objection to indoctrination is that believers treat religion as if it is as true as math and science when humanists feel that it is not as true.

They don't care if you indoctrinate your kids with their doctrines, because they're true (in their eyes).

Indoctrination for me and not for thee. That's what it amounts to.

A religious education makes it more difficult for children to form their own views on the world. It puts obstacles in their way that not all are capable of overcoming.

As if his worldview is not subject to the same weakness!

One of the school system's most important functions is to create a feeling of community, where all are treated on equal terms regardless of race, class or creed. Society's way of treating children with the respect they deserve is to combat by all available means any sense of an "us against them" divide.

(...)

Religions by their nature always run the risk of creating an "us against them" scenario. However tolerant we believe ourselves to be, there is always a reason people consider their own religion superior to all others.

But Humanists are a special breed of people who think more clearly than the rest of us. Since their opinions are the fruit of reason, not faith, their derision and marginalization of religion is enlightening and liberating, not divisive. If only the poor benighted fundamentalists could overcome their indoctrination and their silly fairytale beliefs, they could see the error of their ways and we could all be as one and they could finally stop fomenting that "us against them" mentality. Religion is a plague on society. Humanism unites people under all one creed-- that of reason.

There is no sense of superiority in humanism whatsoever.

Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

Here's the truth.

Generally speaking, it is in a girl's biological nature to appreciate being told she is cute.

It is in a boy's biological nature to love showing off his muscle power.

Does this vary by degrees? Yes. Are there exceptions? Yes.

The outliers do not disprove the general biological tendency.

The fact that society reinforces these tendencies doesn't disprove the biological tendency, either.

When you're a boy, being boyish is enjoyable. When you're a girl, being girlish is enjoyable.

Just because a minority doesn't feel that way doesn't mean the generalization is not useful. Or that it's even harmful.

Pop is missing out that part of his or her identity. I think it's a form of deprivation. How do you love being a woman if you're not taught to embrace your femininity? The converse is true for a man.

I think not informing the kid of his identity is cruel.

Invention allows pregnant women to hold models of their unborn babies

Exciting!

Technology is a fetal rights' activist's best friend.

Pregnant women are being given the chance to hold life-size models of their unborn babies, thanks to an invention that converts data from ultrasound and MRI scans.

Jorge Lopes, a Brazilian designer, uses 3-D printing technology to create the plaster models, which go on show tomorrow at an exhibition at the Royal College of Art in London.

(...)

The technology is being trialled at a clinic in Rio de Janeiro. “It’s amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it,” said Dr Lopes.

But the feminists won't want that to happen, see, because then women will become informed about their unborn child and bond with him, and then they won't want abortions.

In the hands of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, this would save many lives.

Consider also the cultural impact of these models, should someone decide to commercialize these models as momentos.

Fifty years from now, not only will a generation of adults have pictures of themselves in the womb, they will have plastic models to show their grandkids and say "this is me when I was in my mommy's tummy."

You don't think that won't affect future pregnant women?

Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring

Pro-Life Democrats are finally making themselves useful.

The congressmen said that they would only accept a healthcare plan that "explicitly excludes" abortion. They said such restrictions would "save lives," citing a Guttmacher Institute survey that showed banning taxpayer-funded abortion prevents about one third of abortions that would otherwise occur.

There's an abortion-reduction plan I could go for.

I feel like this might all be futile, though. Is this a token gesture? One wonders...

High court clarifies rights of minors to make medical decisions

OTTAWA - A young Jehovah's Witness who challenged a Manitoba law that forced a blood transfusion on her won a partial victory and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs at the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday.

The court ruled that the law in question is constitutional, but said in cases of a dispute about medical treatment, judges must offer children under 16 a chance to demonstrate their competence to make medical choices.

But if has to do with abortion...no questions asked! If you're an immature 14-year-old who slept around and got pregnant and wants to sneak behind mom's back to get an abortion, well that's A-OK and the feminists will go to bat for you to make your own decisions, no matter how incompetent you are. As far as feminists are concerned, if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to have an abortion even when you're not.

Feminists will never allow any challenge to complete, unimpeded access to abortion, even if it means irrational fourteen-year-olds don't have to tip off their parents of their stupid behaviour and late-term fetuses have to die.

So long as it is perceived as a threat to their personal right to abortion everyone and everything else can go to hell. If some fourteen-year-old later comes to regret the abortion because she didn't know a fetus was killed, or some woman goes into the procedure blindly and learns it caused her irreparable harm, or some victim of pedophilia has to continue to be subject to an unreported attacker well tough luck!.

Almost every other right in this world is subject to some sort of limitation.

Not the right their precious right to abortion, though. That's special. Some rights are more equal than others, it seems. A fetus has to die for their political agenda, but Goddess forbid the state or a physician's college place any restrictions for the good of women. Because the only infallible judge of women's interests are feminists and the women themselves (as long as they don't threaten the right to abortion). Because women are never wrong. Women never need anyone to help them clarify their choices, give them information about fetal development, or in the case of minors, have parents make rational decisions for them.

I'm sure a lot of people think this. But don't have the guts to say it. Because the feminist lobby is strong in Canada. And people do not want to be seen as politically incorrect, especially on such an explosive subject.

It's about time people stood up to feminists.

Pro-Lifer Attacked with SUV, Alleged Attacker Charged

CHICO, CA, June 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - James Canfield, a regular pro-life protester of a Planned Parenthood and Women's Health Center in Chico, California, was almost run down during a protest last Wednesday, according to the Chico Enterprise Record. His alleged attacker, Matthew Haver, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Witnesses reported that a man driving an SUV attempted to strike Canfield, who dove out of the way and was not seriously injured. The license plate of the SUV was taken down and was traced back to Haver, who was then arrested.

According to Chico Police Lt. John Carrillo, Canfield was protesting outside of a Planned Parenthood facility with a large, graphic sign of an aborted baby. Haver drove by with a child with him, who asked what was on the sign. Haver then apparently became enraged at the sight of the sign, and attempted to run down Canfield.

You know, the fact that the feminists blame pro-lifers and call us responsible for George Tiller's death...

That's extremist, incendiary hate speech.

Now pro-abortion passers-by at abortion clinics will be out to get us, and the feminist hate speech will provide justification for these assaults.

I bet some commenters will say they don't agree with hitting Canfield, but deep down they're celebrating. They're happy that he was attacked.




See how easy it is to make baseless, unprovable assertions about causation and intentions?

I can just predict the rebuttals: but ours is true: you're just making yours up!

As if believing their rhetoric makes it any more true.

The Joy of Sidewalk Counseling

Well, to my surprise, the girl who had been crying earlier was standing outside on the phone. I immediately approached her and asked what happened because I knew it was too soon for her to have had her abortion.

She explained that her insurance had been denied. I then knew that God had answered my prayers. I remembered she was a Christian so I began talking to her about the Bible and how the book of Jeremiah says that before God formed her in the womb, He knew her, and before she were born, He set her apart for His holy purpose (Jeremiah 1:5). I explained this passage applied to her precious child inside her womb too. She explained to me she would love to keep the child, but she knew she couldn't. She was divorcing her husband, and she already had about half a dozen children, including a newborn. She simply couldn't deal with anymore.

Read the Rest

To think, Joyce Arthur wrote a whole article about these women, condemning them for their hypocrisy, for the "only moral abortion is my abortion" mentality. When in fact, these women know it's wrong, and often do not want the abortion, but they feel trapped and the pro-choicers want to do away with the counselling that might help them see a way out of their predicament. She makes me think of the Pharisees who, having brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus, waited for him to either stone her, or appear hypocritical in his silence.

Archbishop Weisberger condemns Website Catholics

Lifesite:

The Catholic Register reports: “The role of web sites in stirring controversy has become a challenge for bishops.” Weisgerber told the Register: “These bloggers who claim to be more Catholic than anyone — I think first of all they’re not part of the church, they’re not Catholic in the sense that they have no mandate, they have no authority, they have no accountability. And they speak very, very definitively about what it means to be Catholic, and they’re followed by so many people.”

It's almost like this Church organizes itself so that it's impossible to be orthodox.

A Catholic who is orthodox and sees wrongdoing and laxity around the church, and wants the clergy to conform to the Catechism as it is written, is blamed for standing up for the Truth.

The pictorial and documentary evidence against Development and Peace is fairly overwhelming. If bishops were politicians trying to investigate wrongdoing in their own departments, they would get laughed out of the House for defending their investigation method. Asking the organization if they're guilty? Not getting an outsider's look? Completely dismissing the evidence presented? Not refuting anything that Lifesite or John Pacheco has been saying?

And then dismissing allegations that were never made in the first place?

It's the Human Rights Commissions in reverse!

"Excuse me, defendant, are you guilty of anything?"

"Why no!"

"And what of any evidence of wrongdoing?"

"None whatsoever!"

"How do we know that what you're saying is true?"

"Because we said so!"

"Well that's good enough for me. Not guilty!"


And we're all supposed to act like this is all settled?

My consolation is that Vatican has always backed Lifesite. Faithful Catholics back the Vatican, and the Vatican backs faithful Catholics.

I don't think this is the end. I think this is just the beginning of an entrenched battle.

Perhaps this is the start of a purgative process in the Church. It's about time all the laxity and the limp-wristedness is exposed and finally acknowledged, and that we stop telling each other that everything's fine and that we're all beautiful and orthodox, when we're not.

When you have a clergy that, in toto, who won't preach the entirety of the faith, that fears offending virginal secular ears with politically incorrect and "harsh" doctrines, that is not an orthodox clergy. When the clergy closes its eyes to widespread sin-- contraception, divorce, fornication, sodomy, adultery (not to mention heresy and various other sins against the faith), and allows it to pass uncommented, and leaves the people untaught, for fear that it might upset them and make the Church look bad (i.e. "fundamentalist") that's not an orthodox clergy.

The official Church reaction towards this Development and Peace controversy is simply an extension of this attitude. Don't look too hard, or we might find that the Emperor has no clothes. God forbid that people are shown to be modernist in their thinking because then they will have to become fundamentalist and there's no worse label in the world than fundamentalist: We won't be able to hang with the cool socialist kids who walk in anti-poverty marches, piss on George Bush and spout feminist critical theory. Horrors! We may even have to vote Christian Heritage. For God sake's spare us!!!!!!

The people involved with Development and Peace are not going to look too hard because they have a vested emotional and ideological interest in remaining oblivious to the situation. Their left-wing credibility may be on the line. They will have to submit to what they perceive as fundamentalist doctrine, and they would rather be branded sinners and heretics than fundamentalists. That's why they end up in the D & P branch of Church operations and not in the Culture of Life crowd. Nobody ever requires the social justice crowd to be orthodox, because, after all, they're just good-hearted people doing good-hearted things that make people feel all warm and fuzzy and they do a lot of good PR for the Church (meanwhile they're in the background trying to push for women's ordinations and acceptance of contraception.)

We all know that this goes on, so why does the official Catholic media act like this is all a shock. Oh my goodness! The websites have taken over! They've been the voice of faithful Catholics for the last fifteen years, and the Canadian bishops haven't noticed until now?

I think the only reason they noticed is because their authority was challenged over D & P-- their baby. I'm a mom. Nobody likes to be told that their kid is ugly. I know that. But if your kid has dirt smeared all over his face, a booger hanging out his nose and he's still wearing yesterday's bedhead, does the parent have the right to be offended?

When you tell a parent his baby is ugly, they're going to get defensive. Everybody's baby is cutest in their own eyes. But parents can be the blindest observers of their own children, especially when they refuse to see any blemish.

I am glad that we at least have recourse to a higher power in this Church. People may see the central authority of Catholicism as a weakness, as a domineering and tyrannical presence-- indeed, there are many dissenters who think so-- however, it is a great service of the Church to have a Supreme Court for these matters. These "website Catholics" as a general rule stand by the Pope, the Magisterium and Catholic Tradition-- the one that's 2000-years-old, not the latest theological fads since Vatican II.

When you learn to think with the Church, you learn to see what's coming.

I can see what's coming. It's as plain as day.

Court Upholds VA Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Lifesite:

In his concurring opinion, Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote, “The fact is that we - civilized people - are retreating to the haven of our Constitution to justify dismembering a partly born child and crushing its skull. Surely centuries hence, people will look back on this gruesome practice done in the name of fundamental law by a society of high achievement. And they will shudder.”

Prophetic words.

This is an interesting decision, in light of Barack Obama's promise to push for more guarantees on abortion.

Who is going to step forward and say that stabbing a baby's head and sucking his brains out is a humane thing to do?

We wouldn't do it to born babies. Why should we do it to half-born babies?

VIDEO: Hunter and Darcy, preemie twins born at 22 weeks

Don't they look precious?

But if their mother had decided to abort, the feminists would be saying: tough luck, fetuses! After all, the interests of adult women are far more important than these little babies. If babies such as these must die in the name of women's autonomy, well tough sh*t the right to abortion is more important than any fetus's right to life.

That's the abortion ideology in a nutshell.

To think babies who look exactly like that are aborted in Canada every day.

Rebecca Walberg on Nixon's racist views of abortion

ProWomanProLife:

Most of the western world is horrified at the idea that a fetus be a candidate for termination based on its race. How is it really that different to declare it disposable because of a medical condition, or its sex, or the finances of its parents? I hope that in a generation, we recoil at that idea as much as we do now at the idea of terminating a mixed race baby simply because it’s mixed race.

I wonder about how Barack Obama feels about Nixon's views. Hmmmm....

Challenging the Rhetoric of Choice in Prenatal Screening

Victoria Seavilleklein, an ethicist, argues:

According to studies conducted in North America and in the Western world, informed consent is not being met in the vast majority of cases in prenatal screening.10 In particular, a recent Health Technology Assessment, conducted by Green at al. for the UK’s National Health Service, identified and surveyed 78 studies that have been conducted internationally about the psychosocial implications of prenatal screening. Most of these studies were conducted in the US and the UK, although several are from Canada and other European countries. The overwhelming conclusion drawn from all of this research concerned ‘the inadequacy of current procedures for achieving informed consent’.11

For example:

In health care, patients must not only be given information relevant to their decision-making, they must also understand the information that they have been given. Full understanding is not required for informed consent but patients should understand the salient aspects of the proposed procedure and the consequences of proceeding with the intervention or not.19 Studies evaluating women’s knowledge and understanding of prenatal screening overwhelmingly show that women do not understand the testing, including basic facts such as why the test is being done, what conditions are being looked for, what the results mean, and what will (or may) follow after testing.20 These findings are the same both for women who choose to have testing and for those who decline.21 Researchers of one of the most comprehensive studies done on this topic in Canada concluded that despite the high educational level of their study cohort and the existence of a well-organized provincial screening program, there were ‘information gaps overall and in all domains.’22

A contributing factor to this difficulty in comprehension may be that probabilities are very difficult for people to understand. For example, when women are told that they have an increased risk of having a fetus with Down syndrome, some women think this means a) that they have a fetus with Down syndrome23 or b) that their chance of having a child with Down syndrome is 50-50.24

This reaction reflects the difficulty in applying a population statistic at an individual level; after all, a chance of 1 in 250 of having a child with a certain condition is meaningful when considering a group of 250 women, but it does not say anything specific about the child of any particular woman in that group.

If you're really in to the "ProWomanProLife" angle of the pro-life movement, this is right up your alley.

Website Catholicism

In a recent interview on Zoom TV (produced by Salt and Light Television) Winnipeg Archbishop Msgr James Weisberger lamented the advent of "website Catholicism."

Ever since the advent of the internet, orthodox Catholics have been turning to the internet for community and leadership. I can only speak for myself, but I sense that my feelings are widely shared when I say that we have felt very betrayed by the lack of leadership from the bishops in general, with notable exceptions.

One of the symptoms of this abdication of leadership is the Winnipeg Statement, which essentially allowed for Catholic couples to decide whether or not contraception was acceptable for them.

We all know that that's not Church teaching. The Church is fairly clear about this matter: all sexual acts must be open to life.

Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism knows this. But there has been quite a lot of prevaricating in the Church. The Winnipeg Statement has been a kind of portal for the contraceptive mentality in Canada, the guiding light of dissenting Catholics.

If contraception can be "up to the couples", then any doctrine is open to question, in reality.

But now that the D & P scandal has come to light, the bishops are starting to throw their weight around. It's okay to "trust one's conscience" when it comes to contraception, but when it comes to questioning the bishops about their pet organization and the money being funnelled to abortion-promoting groups, well that's not okay.

We're not even questioning Church doctrine, here. We're questioning certain behaviours, certain blindspots in the bishop's judgement.

Although I have a good Archbishop in Ottawa (right now) I'd largely given up on the clergy. As have many pro-lifers. Because the clergy do not seem to care about orthodoxy.

What do I mean by orthodoxy? I'm talking about Catholicism *as the Church teaches it*. I'm talking about ALL Catholic doctrines, not just the ones that are more pleasant to contemplate. I'm talking about being more committed to speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, than to witholding offense.

On websites, you get the real Church. We're not getting the real Church in the parishes, which could explain, to some extent, why they are empty. The baptized do not understand Catholicism because the priests and the bishops won't preach it in its entirety. I don't want Pop psychology niceties. I want doctrine. I want spiritual edification that is an outgrowth of the past, from the Church Fathers right up to the greats of recent times like Therese of Lisieux and Padre Pio.

The clergy seem to be afflicted by modernism. Read Pius X's Pascendi. If that doesn't describe today's clergy, I don't know what does. And if they are not modernist in their affirmations, they are modernist by omission, refusing to come out and state Catholic doctrine in its entirety, with no ifs,ands or buts.

Although there are exceptions, in general, the clergy seem disconnected to the heart of Catholicism. They touch upon the surface; the inoffensive parts, the politically correct parts, the liberal parts, but not the offensive parts, the politically incorrect parts, the traditional parts.

They love to talk about social justice, but not about fetal rights. They love to talk about love and mercy, but nothing about judgement or repentance; they love to talk about the Resurrection but not the Passion; they love to talk about being liberated from one's pain, but not about redemptive suffering.

I could go on and on.

And since the Fathers do not give the bread that the faithful children need, the children will turn elsewhere for it. Have you noticed how Evangelicals are really good at snagging uneducated and uncommitted Catholics?

I really resent that Archbishop Weisberger implied that orthodox Catholics who are concerned about D & P are dissenters, when the real dissenters are being graduated from the seminaries, ordained and they're teaching every dissenting doctrine. And when we object, we're treated like pariahs, like what we say has nothing to do with real Catholicism, when it's all very plainly stated in the Catechism.

While we, who want to be faithful, are mediatically spanked by this Archbishop, nobody thinks: if the clergy had just been faithful in the first place, there wouldn't be this problem.

This reminds me of the neglectful parent, expecting his kids to honour him (because that's what the fourth commandment says) when he's never been a real parent in the first place.

It's a bit much to exact respect and submission when you didn't act like a real parent to begin with.

So yes, until the bishops clean up their act, get in line with thinking of the Church, reject modernism, learn to discipline their dissenting colleagues, the faithful will continue to look elsewhere for guidance and bread. Like abused children, we shouldn't be expected to look up to parents who do not provide what they're supposed to.

I'm all for submission and obedience, but God would never punish starving children for telling off their neglectful parents.

The pro-life angle on those Fetus Gender Detection Kits

A few weeks ago, the press reported on the sale of a new gender detection kit for fetuses. Many worried that these kits could lead to more gender selection abortions.

And no doubt, they are a concern.

However, there is another side to it.

What if Crisis Pregnancy Centres decided to use those kits, in conjunction with ultrasounds, to tell an abortion-minded woman the gender of her child?

One of the things that makes abortion more likely is the anonymity of the child.

So long as the woman conceives of the unborn in the abstract, abortion is seen as a simple "medical procedure".

When the mother learns of the fetus' identity, that decision becomes more difficult.

In the article to which I linked, some couples are suing the makers of this kit because they reneged on their 200 per cent money-back guarantee. One of the plaintiffs said:

Brittany Hayes, who had girls when she expected boys "began to bond on a deeper level with her child and began to call him by his name," the suit contends.

Abortion tries to break that bond between mother and child. Gender identity kits can deepen it.

Now, true, at this point, the gender identity kits are not perfect. But they will be refined. There is a great demand for them. I hope that pro-lifers can see their utility in fighting for the rights of unborn children.

The necessity of informed consent

Real Choice:

A plastic surgeon who just operates on all comers would be considered a quack. It's his job to make sure the patient's expectations about what this surgery will do for her are realistic.

Not so with abortion. She asked for it and that's all he needs to know.

Nobody assesses her for risk factors for poor psychological adjustment and informs her if she is at high risk for being traumatized by the abortion experience. The risk factors are well known; but nobody screens for them and nobody informs the woman of what risk factors she has and what the possible negative outcomes may be.

When I underwent laser eye surgery in January, I was astounded at the eight-page consent form I had to sign. It went through every single piece of minutiae. There was one page I had to initial each statement, line by line.

The counselor told me exactly what would happen during the operation. And the fact that I broke down at the prospect of having my eyes lasered did not deter this woman. She gave me the first sedative, then made sure I knew everything.

(Yes, I have a "thing" about my eyes, but I really wanted to get rid of my glasses).

Feminists figure: she's going to do it anyway, it should be safe and legal.

As if the will of the woman should be the only determining factor in all this. Her judgment must never be subject to examination or scrutiny. No one must ask of her: Hey, is this a good idea? Do you really know what you're doing? Are you sure that this is what you really want?.

These common sense questions are all construed as "misogyny". As if men's judgments are never subjected to questioning.

Richard Nixon worried about abortion

WASHINGTON — On Jan. 23, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down state criminal abortion laws in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence.

The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.”

Gee, ya think?

Sexual permissiveness, widespread STD's and social breakdown.

We didn't see that one coming in the wake of Roe v. Wade. No siree!

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

Ouch.

My latest at NoApologies:The language of late-term abortions.in Canada

Read here

Greek Study: 75% of women ready to abort if fetal abnormality detected

This makes me think that we should be reaching out to the whole childbearing population to help prevent these abortions. Women have got to know that there's a better option.

Jill Stanek: A Politically Incorrect Abortion

But the bottom line is the baby wasn't killed this weekend. A photo of his preborn murder was merely used to stimulate opposition against the current [Iranian] regime. (Think about that.)

I could go a couple different directions with this post but want to focus on the fact that this was simply a politically incorrect abortion. Had the mother, (who it was reported did not die) wanted her 8-month-old preborn son killed in America, so it would have been. (And then his photos wouldn't have been politically correct.)

In my last post on the subject, the supporters of legal abortion all wondered about the mother (and of course we should wonder about her.)

But they wouldn't comment on the baby.

I see the umbilical cord is still attached. In Canada, if that baby had been shot at that moment, it would not have been a murder. The baby cannot breathe with the umbilical cord, and without breath, you cannot fulfill the legal criterion for personhood in Canada.

It goes to show the incredible legalism that goes into support for legal abortion.

Testing

Sorry for the inconvenience.

UPDATE: I didn't like how the videos sometimes spilled over to the sidebar, so I picked a different template. I will be fixing up the blog for the next little while.

I'll work on the header soon.

The Internet Explorer 8 issue

Folks, a number of people who have Internet Explorer 8 can't read my blog because it crashes.

I believe it is due to Sitemeter, which has changed its code.

I would suggest that if you want to read Big Blue Wave, please use Firefox or Opera.

You can do it with IE 8 if you use the Content Blocker, "Internet Options" and blocking "Sitemeter" but I found it to be a humongous pain.

Confessions of a Lapsed Atheist

The American Thinker:

Make no mistake: Atheists think they're smarter than you. Atheism isn't simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.

But Atheists aren't content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they've come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our Founding Fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.

You see, for liberal Atheists, the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?

And "theocracy" means ANY laws inspired by Christianity even if people of other religions (and none) can and do agree with them.

Preserve traditional marriage? Protect the unborn? Religious Freedom? These are all things that people of various beliefs can support, but because Christians support them, they amount to "shoving religion down people's throats." As if there could be no rational, reason-based arguments to support these things.

In effect, Christians (and others) must park their values at the entrance to the public square. What a convenient way to exclude people of faith.

Government of Iran Kills Unborn Baby (GRAPHIC PICTURE WARNING)

During the protests in Iran, government forces shot a pregnant woman, killing the unborn child. Below is the picture of the baby with the bullet hole in his back.

UPDATE: SQ says the photo has been recycled. It appears to be from the Iraq War.

Still, an unborn victim of crime.

Nevertheless, feminists do not want these babies legally acknowledged.


















This is what an unborn victim of crime looks like.

Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?

Mary L. Davenport:

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, shocked the general public in 1997 when he admitted that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies.5 Contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy.6 They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns.7

(...)

Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League stated that about three-fourths of Tiller’s late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured.8

(...)

T. Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Southern California, has written an eloquent article describing how women are told they need abortions for their own health, when this is patently untrue.10 A major reason for unnecessary abortion referrals is ignorance, to put it bluntly, especially on the part of physicians in medical specialties inexperienced in treating women with high-risk pregnancies. According to Goodwin, there are only three very rare conditions that result in a maternal mortality greater than 20% in the setting of late pregnancy.11 Even in these three situations there is room for latitude in waiting for fetal viability if the mother chooses to accept that risk.

(...)

For fatal birth defects, abortion is sometimes presented as the only option. But a better alternative is perinatal hospice. This involves continuing the pregnancy until labor begins and giving birth normally, in a setting of comfort and support until natural death occurs.

VIDEO: Development & Peace: Canada's Catholic Abortion Scandal

A top-notch video with excellent production values. Please pass this on. It's time that Catholics stop being the stooges of the worldwide abortion movement.

VIDEO by Jib Jab: He's Barack Obama

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Comments Moderation

I have decided to continue moderating comments in the short term because there's lots to be done here, and I don't have time to keep a close eye on things. Nor do I necessarily have the energy.

Plus I've noticed that the comments have gotten so much more polite. Well,at least the ones that I publish :)

When life gets a little less busy, I intend to turn off moderation.

VIDEO: Crazy Pete's Abortion Emporium-- stem cells on sale!

N.Y. woman charged with burning daughter in ritual

Teh Stupid. It burns.

Pro-Life Group Convicted of Calling an Abortion Activist an "Abortionist" is Refused Appeal by Brazilian Supreme Court

Lifesite:

ROME, June 17, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Federal Tribunal of Brazil has allowed a decision to stand condemning a pro-life organization for calling a pro-abortion anthropologist an "abortionist anthropologist" in a caption below a photo of the woman, taken while she debated in favor of the legalization of abortion.

The word "abortista" (abortionist) in Portuguese is commonly used to refer to individuals, groups, or ideologies that defend the legalization of abortion, one of whom is anthropologist Debora Diniz Rodrigues. However, a lower court had ruled that the language "gravely offends her personal honor and dignity."

I had to laugh.

What could possibly be dishonorable about being an "abortista"?

Maybe the judges were pro-life and agreed with the defendant.

A surprising column at Reality Check: Sex is Sacred

David Gushee at Rheality Check:

I went on to say: That values level has been touched on with the phrase, "the sacredness of sex." Sex is indeed sacred. My Christian tradition would say that sex is a good gift from God that is deeply important interpersonally and as the means by which the next generation is brought into the world. Our society has cheapened sex and thereby damaged relationships between men and women while endangering the next generation. We need the president (and all of us committed to this issue) to include as part of any abortion reduction proposal some kind of values-laden language reminding Americans that sex is sacred, it is not just a fun game, it is not just an occasion for pleasure, and it must not just be used as a way to get something from somebody and then leave them behind. We need to emphasize the dignity of each person and the dignity of the sexual act between persons, and to call for the appropriate reverence and responsibility in this area of life. (At least, I hope I said that. I am saying it now, anyway.)

Wow. A nice first step. These are the words of someone who is on the path to the Culture of Life. Many of the commenters were upset at this post.

Gushee emphasizes the dignity of the human person, and how making sex utilitarian and cheap can degrade that dignity.

Unfortuanately, he hasn't reached the next step: that of placing sex within the context of marriage.

It's precisely because it is sacred, and it produces children that it needs regulation. It needs the context of marriage to get the most out of it. The logic of love is that you stick around through thick and thin. Sex is supposed to be an expression of that love. Children are supposed to be the fruit of that love.

Contraception makes sex cheap. Because it makes sex appear to have no consequences, it can give you the impression that you can do it as much as you want with anyone you want.

Widespread contraception has led to the sexual license of our present day.

And when that when that widespread contraception fails, it leads to widespread abortion.

Early Stillbirths up by 14% in Canada

I was poking around the internet when I came across a StatsCan database on stillbirths.



From 2000 to 2006 the number of early stillbirths rose by 14%.

Whereas the number of "later" stillbirths remained stable.

Interesting.

I'm no statistician, but I can't believe that this is due to natural causes.

Are there more late-term abortions in Canada?

Is IVF contributing to more stillbirths? (e.g. fetal reductions, unhealthy fetuses)

I wonder.

Pro-life Leaders Face Death Threats, Require Protection From Abortion Rights Radicals

Pewsitter:

Jill Stanek, vilified last week at MSNBC, is the Illinois nurse who exposed the practice of abandoning babies that survive abortions. She has tracked and reported on the career of Dr. Tiller for years at her blog. When I asked her this week about her own safety in wake of the shooting, Stanek said that she, along with Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Fr. Frank Pavone at Priests for Life, had been receiving credible threats from a "troubled man involved in the abortion industry." Jill said that this individual is the child of a pro-choice advocate/writer and his mother had aborted several of his siblings. Following the Tiller shooting, the stalker emailed Stanek again. Federal agents are currently monitoring his movements.

VIDEO: Choices Medical Clinic: A Crisis Pregnancy Centre

I was fascinated by this video. It shows what goes on the Choices Medical Clinic, a Crisis Pregnancy Centre located next to George Tiller's old abortuary.

The director showed the filmmaker what they tell women about abortion.

Of course, there were the fetal models and the videos of fetal development.

But also the instruments of abortion.

If I were a young girl, and I knew nothing about abortion, and I saw these instruments and what they did to a fetus, that would turn me off to abortion. They are creepy looking.

I was also fascinated by the interview with the pregnant young mom-- who already had two kids.

I am so grateful that they let their cameras in their centre. It was very educational.

Pro-life maternal-fetal medicine specialist comments on Tiller's practice

Real Choice:

1) Dr. George Tiller was a family practice doctor. He had NO training in high risk pregnancies, fetal or maternal problems.

2) There is no need after 23-24 weeks to ever perform an abortion in the way that Dr. Tiller did, to save or protect maternal life or health in any way. If life or health is threatened all trained obstetricians and maternal-fetal medicine physicians can and would simply deliver the baby and place the baby in a neonatal intensive care unit. It happens every day, many times, all over the United States

Read more.

Careerist speaks of her two abortions

Penelope Trunk:

So the second time I got pregnant, I thought of killing myself. My career was soaring. I was 30 and I felt like I had everything going for me – great job, great boyfriend, and finally, for the first time ever, I had enough money to support myself. I hated that I put myself in the position of either losing all that or killing a baby.

(...)


I got two abortions to preserve my career. To keep my options open. To keep my aspirations within reach.

I bought into the idea that kids undermine your ability to build an amazing career.

And here I am, with the amazing career.

But also, here I am with two kids. So I know a bit about having kids and a career. And I want to tell you something: You don’t need to get an abortion to have a big career. Women who want big careers want them because something deep inside you drives you to change the world, lead a revolution, break new barriers.

It doesn’t matter whether you have kids now or later, because they will always make your career more difficult. There is no time in your life when you are so stable in your work that kids won’t create an earthquake underneath that confidence.

I think that she might be understating the effect of children on careers.

I agree with her that having kids doesn't necessarily prevent a woman from building a career. But being a mom is a full-time job, and when you're a mom, you tend to put career second.

That being said, I agree with her that when you have drive, the kids won't stop you. Look at me. I'm very devoted to the idea of staying home with the children and taking care of them.

But I also have a lot of drive. I just couldn't simply be a mom and nothing else. So I've built up this blog and a "career" in pro-life activism-- if you want to call it that.

I wish I had known in high school that this was possible-- being a stay-at-home mom, while fulfilling my passions, in spite of the lack of a paycheque. Of course, this was before the Internet.

Between being a full-time working mother slaving 40 hours or more at the office and being a stay-at-home mom devoted uniquely to raising children and doing housework, there is a lot of "in-between". You don't have to be just one thing.

This is where I get annoyed with this barefoot-and-pregnant so-con stereotype.

There are a lot of women out there who manage to create fulfilling lives while having kids and being moms.

Without having abortions.

Ore. Woman Dodges Charge for Fetus Cut From Womb

(Newser) – The Oregon woman accused of cutting the fetus out of another woman has been indicted on aggravated murder charges, but she won’t be charged for the fetus’ death, the AP reports. Under Oregon law, it must be shown that a baby drew at least one breath outside the womb before any separate charge can be considered

So let's review. Baby takes breath=recognition. No breath? Tough luck! No crime took place wrt him.

Another example of Joyce Arthur's line: "fetuses are not that important."

And here's the kicker:

The aggravated murder charges allege that Korena Roberts, 27, attempted to kidnap the baby of 21-year-old Heather Snively and rob her, and tried to conceal the crimes, the DA said.

How can you "steal" a woman's so-called body part?

Treating the fetus and the woman as one leads to some interesting mental gymnastics.

Abortionist Killed: National news Abortionist Kills Woman: Ignored

Abortionist George Tiller's death brought an outpouring of national media headlines and Congressional condolences to his family by a resolution approved by the US House. Laura Hope Smith's death at the hands of an abortionist was and continues to be ignored, and her mother's effort to bring it to the attention of her senator was stonewalled.

More here

Canadian Cynic Identity Revealed

Girl on the Right has the details.

He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater. Canadian Cynic.

No Libs has details on where he works.

To the right: a photo of Rob Day.

For those who you who are not in the know, Canadian Cynic is a blogger who for the past several years has anonymously blogged at canadiancynic.blogspot.com (NSFW)

He has a horrible reputation on the blogosphere for insulting and demeaning right-wing bloggers using foul language and adolescent mockery.

He thinks it's just dandy to call conservative women "c*nts".

I don't say this very often about people but he is a mean, vile human being with no sense of respect or honour.

Let this be a lesson to people who think that they can continually demean and humiliate anyone behind the shield of anonymity on the internet.

The lowest tactic was when Cynic revealed information about Richard Evans' kids and where they went to school, exposing them to possible danger. That was the lowest of the low. Richard Evans should sue you for calling him a NAMBLA devotee.

What comes around goes around.

I wonder if this will have any effect on his blogging style. After all, now that he can't hide behind his blog like a coward, he'll have to own up to his words in public. And now his reputation will follow him. And everyone can now know what a horrible human being he has been to conservative bloggers.

Oh and, just so you know, he encourages his clients to google his name "Robert P.J. Day" and "linux".

Parents of Sextuplets Ignored Abortion Advice

And they were conceived without IVF.

Nuala, from County Tyrone, said: “These babies are a wonderful gift from God. What-ever God laid out for our lives, we were taking it.”

I love stories like this. Just so happy.

Changing the Culture Shouldn't Mean the Abandonment of Fetal Rights

The National Post:

Signal Hill is a group lobbying to make abortion a thing of the past. But unlike almost every other anti-abortion group in Canada and the United States, Signal Hill believes it is a waste of time trying to make abortion illegal.

"If we made abortion illegal tomorrow it's not going to change anything. I am not concerned with the law," said Yvonne Douma, the executive-director of the British Columbia-based organization.

If we made abortion illegal, of course it would change *something*. It would mean that a lot of abortionists would go out of business.

I'm all for changing the culture. But I don't think that just because you want to change hearts, you should disparage the work of those who work towards fetal rights.

This is a human rights struggle, after all. You don't abandon the legal aspect of human rights.

It does not have to be an "either/or" proposition.

They want to radically shift the conversation from the polarized rut it has been stuck in for years to something more productive.

I'm all for expanding the discussion on fetal rights.

But the truth is, the dynamics of the issue will make it polarized. You can package the abortion debate any way you want, it still remains the abortion debate.

"My approach was to go after cultural change and pull it out of the legislative arena and not even talk about it or discuss it. Politicians will not take this on anytime soon."

There has been more attention paid to it in the last five years. If we do not keep up the pressure, then nothing will ever happen. It might take a long time, but it doesn't mean we should stop.

Established anti-abortion groups don't believe this middle way is the route to change. They believe in changing the law before public opinion is on side, as in civil rights campaigns.

That is a really biased statement from a biased reporter. The reporter is framing the attempt to change the culture as the "middle way". It's not a "middle way"-- it's complementary to what political pro-lifers are doing.

Kristin Williams, a spokeswoman for the group, said Mr. Obama has helped create common ground on the issue and leave the divisive labels behind.

What about common ground on fetal rights?

Selective Guilt by Association

Christine Flowers:

We may not have liked what Tiller did, but we absolutely didn't want to see him dead. Roeder was not one of us. He was a psychopath, a man whose demented mind led him to commit a crime that is, essentially, the antithesis of what the pro-life movement represents.

But that's not the way it's being played on the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and our sister paper here in Philadelphia. Somehow, Tiller's blood is on the hands of all of us who ever wore a rose in our lapel, protested in front of an abortion clinic, criticized Roe v. Wade or sent money to crisis pregnancy centers.

WHICH IS really interesting because those same opinion pages loudly lamented any demonization of Muslim-Americans after 9/11. They were appalled that a whole group of people could be blamed for the criminal acts of 19 men. They took great pains to call Islam a religion of peace and distinguish it from the violence of extremists.

And they condemned guilt-by-association.

(...)

But when it comes to the pro-life movement, there isn't the same attention to detail.

Sure, they threw us a bone and acknowledged that Operation Rescue denounced "vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place." But the consensus was that if pro-lifers had just used nicer language when describing Tiller, he'd still be alive today. Guess there's no difference to them whether we're holding rosaries, or guns.

VIDEO: 'Everyday normal Republicans' by Steven Crowder

Some other cliches about conservative women:

They are all brainless and uneducated. They all want to bag a man and get their meal ticket; if they don't get a man, they feel like they're worthless and that their life has no meaning.

The only thing they care about and are able to do is parenting.

They all wear make-up, get their hair done,wear high heels while doing housework and look to June Cleaver as their model.

They have no interests or ambitions outside of parenting or popular culture. They're certainly not intellectual. The rich ones all have nannies and get to "do lunch". The poor ones must define their lives by housework.

They are robots who do exactly what their husbands tell them to do. If they do anything political or controversial, it is always at the prompting of their husbands. They are completely incapable of any independent thought or action whatsoever.

They have a lot of repressed anger about their submissive role. They would really rather be on the job market working up their careers and making a name for themselves, but they feel "stuck" at home inside four walls, their brains turning to mush from listening to their toddlers all day. If they had a choice, they would ditch their religion and marriage in a minute. The only reason they don't is because they are secretly insecure and wouldn't know how to cope. They live vicariously through their families and lack any ambition or fortitude of their own.

These stereotypes, by the way, are typically spread by feminists and other "progressives".

The Welfare of the Unborn Child

JivinJ:

I hate lines like this:

Maybe a good mother knows when it’s time to terminate, for her sake and for her child’s.

It’s the last line in an e-mail from a pregnant woman, who e-mailed a New York Times parenting blog looking for advice from the blog’s readers on what she should do.

What kind of person actually thinks that terminating their unborn child is something to do for the sake of the child?


Do they not understand abortion isn’t something where the child is put on pause and then magically reappears when the mother is more ready to give birth?

Do they not understand that abortion, err... I mean, termination kills the child?

Imagine the amount of convoluted rationalizing it must take to think that you’re going to kill your unborn child for your child’s sake.

Let's put it this way: would we do the same to an infant for his sake?

Holocaust shooter was a Christian-hating socialist

Front Page:

The white-wing fringe greeted the news with predictable joy. Its most popular website, Stormfront.org, saluted “White Racialist Treasure: James Von Brunn” in 2004; a thoughtful reader, seeing Von Brunn had backed up his recent threats with deadly action, wrote yesterday, “Definitely needs a bump today.” Another hoped the shooting would cause Americans to believe taking their children to Holocaust memorials is now “an insurance risk.”

Yet racists are not alone in their glee. Leftists have decided to exploit Von Brunn’s madness to engender fear of rampant conservative terrorism. They overlook one point: the shooter was not a conservative.

A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a “HOAX” invented by the Apostle Paul to “DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE” from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West.”

(...)

Although the hate crimes industry lumps neo-Nazis and White Nationalists in with the “Religious Right” – and occasionally, FrontPage Magazine, the better to smear you with – few Americans realize the true believers are not merely non-Christian but anti-Christian. Like their predecessors, they trace Aryan downfall to “culture distorters” (guess who?) – and among the largest “distortion” is the replacement of warlike Germanic gods with Jesus Christ, the Messiah promised by the Jewish Scriptures. Von Brunn dedicated Kill the Best Gentiles to the late professor Revilo P. Oliver. Typical of Nazis, past and present, Oliver branded Christianity a “Jewish cult” and “spiritual syphilis.” Brunn’s follows suit. He shuns the words of the Bible, exhorting his readers: “Remember, these delusions of grandeur were written by HEBREWS about themselves. Megalomaniacs of such magnitude generally are manic-depressives confined to insane asylums.” (p. 31.)

My latest from No Apologies

George Tiller’s Murder vs. Web 2.0

In ages past, all feminists had to do to gain acceptance for abortion was to talk about it uniquely from the woman’s side of the story and shut out any talk of the unborn. But this time around, teary-eyed stories from women who claimed to have “needed” an abortion from George Tiller to “treat” a fetal deformity will not undermine the pro-life political momentum. No matter how many hard cases feminists bring to the fore, the fact is that the pro-life movement has succeeded in searing in the brain of average Americans that abortion kills babies and that abortion is wrong, especially in the third trimester. When Bill O’Reilly called Tiller “the baby killer”, most people agreed. When feminists condemn him, by extension they condemn Middle America.

VIDEO: Ratzinger's Choice

This video tells the story of the Pope's calling to the priesthood, and how he openly rejected Nazism.



H/T: National Catholic Register

The Pro-Life Record of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leadership Candidates #roft

I have written elsewhere about these candidates, and at times made some critical remarks.

In fairness, I would like to publish this Interim article that I received by email, detailing the pro-life record of each Ontario PC leadership candidate:

June 8, 2009 (theinterim.com) - As reported by LifeSiteNews on May 7 the Ontario wing of Canada's national pro-life political organization, Campaign Life Coalition, has endorsed Frank Klees for the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, noting that he is its "preferred candidate" in a field that includes three of his fellow Tory MPPs. Klees is rated "pro-life" by CLC, whereas Randy Hillier (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox-Addington) is rated "not pro-life," Tim Hudak (Niagara West-Glanbrook) is rated "unknown" and Christine Elliot (Whitby-Oshawa) is rated "pro-abortion."

Klees welcomed CLC's stamp of approval. He told LifeSiteNews.com that the endorsement was gratifying and confirmed his pro-life stance: "My position on pro-life positions has been consistent since I've been in public life."

He served in the cabinets of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves as chief government whip and deputy leader, and later as minister of tourism and recreation and minister of transportation. He has a long record of championing socially conservative causes. In the late 1990s, he introduced Bill 91, which would have required that parents be advised of health care treatments for their children - including abortion, among other procedures. It is considered by some to be the only pro-life bill to have made it to a vote at Queen's Park since the 1980s. The bill was defeated, however, garnering the votes of just a minority of his PC colleagues.

Just stop right there.

A bill as rudimentary as informing parents of health care treatments of children was defeated by the PC's?

Why are social conservatives voting for this party?

But I digress...

Among those who voted for Bill 91 was Tim Hudak, the early frontrunner in the current leadership race. CLC president Jim Hughes told The Interim he appreciated both candidates' support for Bill 91 at the time, but added that, "Klees was a leader on the issue." Hughes noted: "Hudak voted for the bill that Klees introduced." In 1995 and 1999, Hudak was qualified by CLC as "pro-life with exceptions," but hasn't followed up his rhetoric with actions. Unlike Klees, he does not appear to have ever sponsored pro-life legislation or risen to make an impassioned defence of life or the family in the legislature.

In 2005, when the Dalton McGuinty government was redefining the term "spouse" in provincial law to include same-sex couples, there was an agreement between McGuinty and then-PC leader John Tory that ensured there would not be a recorded vote. On Feb. 24, 2005, Klees asked for other members of the provincial parliament to join him in demanding a recorded vote and only two other MPPs joined him. Five MPPs are required to force a recorded vote. A week later, he made another impassioned plea for a recorded vote amidst the backroom dealing that thwarted a transparent vote. Klees said: "What are we hiding? What is the problem? Why, if they consider themselves so committed to this bill, will people not stand in their place and simply identify their vote in Hansard for everyone to see? People at home and people in the galleries must be asking themselves, 'What is going on in this place?' What is wrong with this bill that you're not prepared to identify with it? What are we afraid of?"

On March 4, Klees was one of two PC MPs to filibuster so that two of their colleagues would have time to make it to the debate and join in the demand for a recorded vote. Pro-marriage activists called his efforts heroic. More important, Klees not only stood up for marriage, he opposed his own party leader, at great risk to his own political career. Hughes praised the courageous stand taken by Klees and asked: "Where was Tim Hudak? Why didn't he stand up for traditional marriage?" That is a good question and one that Hudak has never answered.

Neither the Hudak nor Elliott campaigns would talk to The Interim. Both Klees and Hillier were interviewed by this paper and only Klees responded to a CLC questionnaire or agreed to be interviewed by CLC representatives. Hudak has announced he will abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission, while Hillier has alternatively said he will "abolish" or "reform or abolish" the OHRC. However, Hillier kicked off his campaign with the promise to do so, whereas Hudak did so well into his campaign in mid-March. When Hudak raised the issue, Elliott attacked the move by suggesting that such a position could be as unpopular as John Tory's plan to fund religious schools. Hillier also supports protecting conscience rights, including for health care workers and marriage commissioners. It is notable that Hillier, a socially conservative libertarian, has made these issues a priority in his campaign.

Unfortunately, Hillier would not return a signed leadership candidate's questionnaire to CLC. Reportedly among the hang-ups he had was answering the question of whether he was pro-life. He told The Interim in April that he disliked labels, saying he refused to be "pigeon-holed." However, in that same interview, he said he would seek ways to reduce abortion in the province. That would include informed consent for women seeking abortions and promoting adoption. On the issue of defunding abortion, Hillier said he did not know what the Canada Health Act required of the province and would not commit to a position.

Furthermore, he told The Interim that he would not fund the HPV vaccine campaign and would remove the legislative authority of professional bodies such as the Ontario Medical Association and Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, both of which are increasingly hostile to conscience rights.

Asked about Hillier's supportive stance on numerous socially conservative issues, Hughes told The Interim that CLC supported Klees because he "far and away has the best record on life and family issues during his time at Queen's Park."

While none of the candidates appears to be as socially liberal as the man they seek to replace, John Tory, there are a number of other red flags, notably around Hudak. While his record and rhetoric is mildly socially conservative - he tells PC supporters he is pro-life - he has surrounded himself with social liberals, including Mike Harris's brain trust: Tom Long, Leslie Noble and, of course, his wife, Deborah Hutton. Long ran for the 2000 Canadian Alliance leadership and campaigned as a social "moderate" while hammering away at the socially conservative Stockwell Day. Long was the vehicle for socially liberal federal conservatives to oppose what was seen as the immoderate pro-life and pro-family wing of the old Reform party. His rhetoric betrayed an increasing hostility to social conservatives in the public square. According to the March 18, 2009 Toronto Star, Long chaired an early strategy meeting for Hudak's leadership bid. In it, participants reassembled the highly successful unit that catapulted Harris to power in 1995. Noble was another architect of the "Common Sense Revolution" and is another socially liberal backroom operative who is especially hostile to social conservatives. Michael Coren has reported that in 1996, while at the Winds of Change conference in Calgary, Noble said social conservatives "have no place in a modern conservative party." Party insiders say she and Long pressed Mike Harris not to address socially conservative issues during his tenure as premier. They will likely have the same influence on Hudak if he is elected leader.

While Noble and Long never served on Harris's staff, Deborah Hutton was viewed as the triumvirate's pitbull in the premier's office, a rigid enforcer of their socially liberal heterodoxy. Today, Hutton is married to Hudak and no doubt is an important adviser on political and policy matters to her husband. Hutton is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and firmly ensconced on the socially liberal side of the PC party. As one former party insider told The Interim, "She is socially liberal on every issue." She supported socially liberal Ernie Eves in the 2002 Ontario PC leadership race over the more socially conservative Jim Flaherty. In 2004, she was a key member of Belinda Stronach's team in the federal Conservative party leadership campaign. Stronach ran as a self-described "socially moderate" voice within the Conservative party. While Hudak's record isn't anything particularly great or awful, his inner circle of advisers indicates that his leadership could be bad news for social conservatives.

Preferential balloting begins on June 21 and the results will be announced June 25. CLC has urged supporters to vote for Frank Klees.

This article is a slightly modified version of a June 2009 Interim newspaper article, re-published with permission from The Interim.

AUDIO: Jim Hughes' speech to Annunication of Our Lord Parish in Ottawa

Listen here.

Among the subjects discussed: The murder of George Tiller; his encounter with Henry Morgentaler; his beginnings in the pro-life movement.

I wish more people knew Jim Hughes. I have always known him to be a kind man and an engaging speaker.

VIDEO: Bernard Nathanson, last surviving founding member of NARAL

The video was made during the campaign to ban abortion in South Dakota. Bernard Nathanson eventually repented of his ways and eventually became Catholic.

VIDEO: Randy Hillier vs. Christine Elliott on HRC's

The video is entitled: Christine Elliot, just another John Tory.



Here's my question. How do the PC's intend on abolishing the HRC's with MPPs like Christine Elliott on the team? Just wondering. It appears the PC's are not all on the same page. How many other MPP's in caucus think this way? They did elect John Tory, after all.

Poor-choicers engage in vulturism

An excellent analysis of pro-abort reaction to the Tiller shooting:

I am not a terrorist. I don’t know any terrorists. But I oppose abortion and know a whole bunch of people who are abortion opponents. And I’m not going to let political vultures ever make me afraid to stand up for what I believe is right.

(...)

There are millions and millions of people who take an anti-abortion position. Many of us are located in the South, Southwest and Midwest, so millions of us are well-armed and proficient in the use of firearms. Were this a movement dedicated to violence, every abortion doctor would be in the morgue tomorrow.

But abortion doctors go about the bloody, immoral business of providing abortion on demand day in and day out unscathed. They are able to go about their business unharmed because abortion opponents protest peacefully. Yet they are labeled terrorists when mentally ill people take actions abortion opponents don’t sanction.

(...)

They are labeled terrorists because of a type of political opportunism I call “vulturism.” Political vultures circle waiting for a tragedy, usually a death, and then they swoop down and feed off the corpse. They hope a death will paint their political opponents as murderers and sway others to their position. It’s cheap, cynical manipulation.

(...)

But making Tiller a hero is all pro-abortion forces have. Even Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade opposes abortion. They need a hero because they have no moral ground to stand on and public opinion has turned.

Pro-abortion forces can taunt their opponents. They can talk about “a woman’s body,” which is not the issue; it’s the body inside the woman’s body that is the issue. They can talk about what might happen if abortion isn’t legal. But they can’t talk about the act that they are promoting.

They can’t talk about it because it involves terminating a human life.

(...)

Abortion opponents believe in protecting innocent human life. And they believe in obeying the laws of the land. That is why they stand by and protest peacefully while abortion doctors kill millions and a small number of mentally ill or misguided individuals have killed a handful of abortion doctors.

In other words, the exception proves the rule.

Any time the poor-choicers denounce us for our terrorism, just call them on their vulturism: their inflated, overheated and deceptive rhetoric designed to manipulate the public, and which profits from the shooting of an abortionist.

VIDEO: MPP Frank Klees introduces bill to abolish Section 13 in Ont. Human Rights law #roft #pcpo

...but opposes abolishing the Human Rights Commission.

The whole system is flawed and unnecessary. But whatever. It's a start. We can gauge support for this among politicians.



UPDATE:

I thought it was strange that Ontario had a Section 13...


From the Randy Hillier campaign:

Legislative “stunt” misfires as Klees confuses federal and provincial laws
(June 8th, Perth, Ontario) –– Randy Hillier, candidate for the leadership of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, today called on his opponent Frank Klees to immediately withdraw his Private Members Bill aimed at repealing Section 13 of Ontario’s Human Rights Code, calling the Bill “a stunt that confuses federal and provincial laws.”

Hillier was reacting to Klees’ statements that the Bill, if passed, will “remove Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Act” which Klees claims is being used by Ontario’s Human Rights Commission to deal with matters relating to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. A copy of the Klees press release can be viewed by visiting at: http://www.frankklees.com/2009/06/04/klees-reform-the-human-rights-commission-refocus-on-discrimination

“In the first place, there is no Ontario Human Rights Act,” explained Hiller. “There is an Ontario Human Rights Code, but Section 13 of that Code has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech.”
“Mr. Klees is clearly confusing Section 13 of the Ontario Human Rights Code with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which has been used extensively to limit freedom of expression in this country.” Hillier continued. “The Canadian Human Rights Act is a federal law and cannot be amended provincially.”

“It’s troubling that someone running for the leadership of our party would have so little respect for the legislative process that he would neglect to conduct even a minimum of research before tabling a bill,” said Hillier. “It calls into question the credibility of Mr. Klees and his campaign.”

Randy Hillier is a leading voice on the issue of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), having been the first leadership candidate to call for it’s abolition.

Randy Hillier was first elected to the Ontario legislature in October 2007 – winning one of three new seats for the PC Party of Ontario – and was the party’s critic for rural affairs.

- 30 –