The latest strike at the family as constituted by God is what can be characterized as the "Anti-Granny Stratagem," one of the many tactics used by the educational-feminist elites.
With the rise of home schooling and a more activist movement among traditionalists, especially Christian, the socialist one world internationalist anti-life crowd finds itself challenged beyond their original assessment, resulting in not enough malleable young children available for molding in order to hasten their "vision." Some way had to be devised to influence public opinion, especially heavily-burdened parents, in order to induce them to give up their young to the "experts."
Hence the newest stratagem employing the old tried and true method of the double punch: a phony study complete with false statistics and a duped media all too willing to broadcast the results, that is, grandmothers are not the best caretakers of their grandchildren, day care operators are-------without much scrutiny or challenge from the so-called "watchdogs" as the various media title themselves, coupled with class division.
Let's examine this "study."
Without providing the criteria used, the size of the group of grandmothers examined and under what circumstances, etc., the media shills suddenly announce after all these generations that "grandmothers are not the best care givers for their young grandchildren," while their parents are working to pay the oppressive taxes levied unjustly by our rulers. As soon as I heard that line I knew what the upshot would be and sure enough that false assertion was followed by the supposed fact that day care providers are better educated and better suited for looking after the young who are uprooted from their homes where they are lovingly cared for and educated, including actual home schooling, predominantly by their grandmothers. And, of course, the study also "discovered" that the better educated parents prefer day care to their own mothers. Of course!
Apart from the lack of criteria cited above, how do I know that this is a a tactic to induce mothers and fathers to give up their children to day care providers and the school system? Elementary, pardon the pun.
WARNING: FOR ADULTS ONLY, HOME SCHOOLERS, DO NOT LET YOUR TEENAGERS READ THIS COLUMN ( BELOW).
This column will not be the usual format of a single topic because it has been the week that cries out for redress, subject after subject. Just a few choice highlights:
One of our diocesan priests, when informed by a parishioner that he gave scandal by introducing a publicly pro-abortion US Catholic Senator at Mass, thus lending respectability to her, rebuffed the concerned parishioner of his, saying that he would not dignify his remarks with an answer, then proceeded with an answer anyway, by instructing the man, a courageous defender of the Faith and the unborn, that he could not possibly know what he [Father] intended, etc. And further that said Senator had had an audience with the Pope and that if it was okay for him to receive her in audience, then it was okay for him as a pastor to do so. As if that settled the matter once and for all.
Correction, Fr. Pastor!
As a priest you may have a duty to receive her in a semi-private audience as the Pope did, even though news of it became public, but no obligation to introduce her in the manner you did at Mass [very public, indeed], just as the Pontiff did not when she went to Rome. And just as you told your parishioner that he could not know what you did privately, so neither can you know what the Pope told our errant US Senator. The picture in the newspaper did not show him smiling so perhaps he may have been speaking to her about her pro-abortion record, if he knew of it.
When a pastor publicly acclaims a KNOWN pro-abort without further ado, this lends credence to the suspicion that the Church speaks the talk but does not walk the walk: especially when these pro-abort pols, public sinners everyone, objectively speaking, usually receive Holy Communion, get introduced with smiles as if totally respectable, while most Catholics no longer vote with a Catholic conscience unless it is a politically correct issue, and this is okay because look at Father with the Senator! No one says this about an audience with the Pope because he is known for shaking his finger while instructing the wayward in their Catholic duty, while you, Father, are known for humiliating concerned parishioners anonymously from the pulpit as an act of intimidation to dissuade others, and by letter. But with a pro-abort pol in the pew, no such correction is forthcoming! The man was right on point.
The comparison was a false one, Father, and this is correction #1. Correction #2 is a question and is in regard to your permitting another pro-abort Catholic parishioner, who is a State Senator, to run her ads in the parish bulletin. Surely, Father, you don't mean to say that this is okay because the Pope does this, too, say permit the Senator ad space on his Vatican web site or the equivalent?
The recent media coverage, or should I say barrage, non-stop over the last month, on the matter of priestly pederasty, particularly in the archdiocese of Boston and the diocese of Portland, Maine, has given evidence of a private media agenda: use any scandal to further the feminist-modernist goals for changing the Church. The media is all but gloating, while feigning shock and outrage, in its daily reports. There is, of course, no shortage of willing stooges among the laity available to spout the agenda line: the cure is married priests and women priests, who never, never abuse children, by implication. And also by implication the homosexual priests don't either, which is an exercise in irrationality. Some of these poor benighted parishioners, typical of those who are trained over the years by their homosexual priests to accept modernism and the all too prevalent goofy liturgy, actually told the television reporter that they wanted to keep their pastor; one of those interviewed had a son soon to be the age of vulnerability and still he was not that concerned. He appeared to be more concerned with not loosing a priest than with protecting young men, his own children or those of others who may not be on the parish council and may have a far different view. It's no mystery why the focus was almost exclusively on these sorry, misguided parishioners. One woman said it did not matter as we "have to be careful these days anyway." I wonder if she would feel the same way about a convicted and released sex offender moving in next door to her family. She could at least keep an eye on his house, but the rectory might be another situation.
The media promoted "gay rights" agenda has unleashed unintended consequences, which can be used in turn to promote more of the same. One columnist actually stressed that homosexuality was not the problem, betraying his agenda. Homosexuality and its unnatural vices must be protected at all costs, and lying is one of the tactics used to further the cause of Sodom. Then he used the term, "pedophilia," which is what some heterosexuals commit. This, even though only one case involved that crime, while all the rest were crimes of pederasty, a homosexually-committed crime. Pederasty was never raised in his column, nor the fact that a much higher percentage of homosexuals are addicted to pederasty than are heterosexuals to pedophilia.
The problem is less the pederasts among the clergy, although that is enough to bring down the wrath of God upon us, and more the homosexuality in the priests among us, a virtual epidemic here in Maine. So, how would having a married clergy help? These men would not be marrying in the first place even if permitted! And to date, in our diocese, all the pederasty cases involve homosexuals, by definition. And if we had women priests, a Sacramental impossibility, as such ordinations would be invalid, most of them would in all likelihood be lesbians and here we would go again, as a certain case of a lesbian instructor attempting a sexual crime with one of her young students at a local university proves.
Then there is the matter of pederasty and pedophilia themselves. Marriage cannot cure these depravities; it is a developmental-spiritual problem, too complex for the purpose of this column. The Press & Co. must pretend that the problem is pedophilia, not pederasty, not homosexuality, because they want to continue to support "gay rights," an issue they have a self-invested interest in promoting, being liberal to the core. This is why we will get more of the same, whatever the bishops do, because our bishop, at least, is determined to support "gay rights," and continues to surround himself with a Chancery staff that has a number of known homosexuals. He might succeed in reducing the overt cases of pederasty because these criminals who prey on the young will start selecting them a little older or engage in their vice with each other as they already do, but he will never succeed in changing the public perception that the diocesan hierarchy is under the influence of the "gay agenda," and that no normal young man would be attracted to the priesthood when confronted with such effiminate or otherwise repulsive traits in these priests. I will never forget that one of them was permiited to wear an earring and another to sashay and flit about with exaggerated effeminacy and tell off-color jokes from the pulpit. Another was finally sent packing, but only after he spoke about being a "gay bartender." Heresy and irreverence are little nothings, but public exposure, well, that is something else! Recently another homosexual pastor told one of his parishioners on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception that Mary had slept with Joseph and that she was not a perpetual Virgin, a blasphemy and heresy he needs to believe to justify himself. But to demoralize a member of the faithful to perpetuate the justification is beyond the pale! He did not seem to even understand that the Immaculate Conception had nothing to do with the conception of Christ in Mary's womb, but that she was conceived without Original Sin. See what I mean?
One of them, a pastor in good standing, is so sick he has/had a collection of pornographic "etchings" that he showed privately to a horrified young man who was disgusted. He was too embarrassed to tell the bishop and the priest would have just denied it anyway. Since it did not involve "child pornography," he could not have even been charged with an attempted crime, our society so fallen into passivity where "adult" vice is concerned. What galls even more is realizing that the priest must have been pretty sure he would get away with this, because he did. Think about it! Then there is the matter of the priest caught partcipating in that atrocious homosexual pornographic web site. He was removed, for a scant three weeks, that is, then placed back in a parish where he can continue to convert the laity into giving up slowly their Catholic faith for the values of the world, read, homoseuxal "values."
Oh, yes, the heart of the matter is homosexuality, a grave disorder that places these poorly trained homosexuals in harm's way. Even where there is no pederasty, there is a tendency to downplay sexual sin in the confessional, etc., and the aforesaid liaisons between like-tempted priests. But we are all supposed to act as if we don't know this, or if we do, it should not matter. Widespread homosexuality in the priesthood, if not checked, leads to other disorders such as the de-Catholicizing of the faithful, not to mention the grave danger of the priests losing their immortal souls.
The verdict in the much publicized Andrea Yates murder trial is in as we all know by now: guilty of capital murder. What should happen to her is a subject beyond our purview. However, the hypocrisy surrounding the commentators' comments, known to be rabidly pro-abortion in almost every case, is quite audacious and so ironic! Two of these legal beagles had the audacity to suggest that she deserved the death penalty [while acknowledging Yates is mentally ill and will probably get life where she won't get the care they state she needs, and which penalty might be just, they aver] because she killed her "little babies" in cold-blood to save them from having an awful life with her. One of them described how she pictured the infant struggling for life as her mother suffocated her in the bathtub. Hmmm! Let's see now, if we have this right:
Infants ought to be protected by their mothers, and the death struggle of a tiny infant merits special punishment. Well, you won't get much argument from me there, if the murdering mother is not psychotic.
Correction, Pro-abortion Commentators!
The children were in age from 6 months to 7 years, give or take a year. They did not all qualify as "babies." Like the curious use of the term, "children," in the Columbine shootings a few years ago, we are seeing the employment of deliberately evocatively sympathetic language to manipulate public opinion. The younger the teenagers, the better, thus the then repeated reference to them as children was quite cynical, because these talking heads are quick to refer to the same students as young men and women when the issue is sex-ed, but when they are murdered, suddenly the teens are no longer young adults, but children!
And so it is now, all five children were called "babies" by these two reporters. The younger the age the more sympathy, psychologically speaking. The ages are actually not germane because murder is well, murder. But the feminists and liberal commentators who are divided into two camps, one pro-Yates [they see the connection between abortion and infanticide and aren't hypocrites at least], the other being anti-Yates, and this side gives itself away as its members let crocodile tears fall from their lying lips, not their eyes: They are all for mothers protecting their "babies," and "tiny babies," when it is a home schooling Christian mom, no matter how sick she is, but if the same mother had aborted all five children serially, and if the tiny babies then recoiled from the invasive act of murder in the womb, that is "struggled to survive" as they are wont to do as we know from doctors who have so testified, then that's supposed to be different. They can't claim to mind about the motive, "my children are better off dead," as Andrea Yates has said was her motive, because so many women say this is their rationale for an abortion. The only difference is in the size of the children so murdered and the manner. At least Andrea Yates had the courage to do the foul deed herself, if we can put it like this, to make our point; the aborting feminist in camp 2, who knows she is killing her child [not the young girl who is frightened and told in school that abortion is a moral choice], hires a hit man, A.K.A. a respectable, legal butcher, to do it for her, then she gets to be hailed as courageous . . . One of the legal experts claimed that if allowed to live, Yates would continue to be a danger to society, as she might even "kill those who get abortions." Her bias was so thick they do not manufacture a machete sharp enough to cut through it.
Well, since the facts are undisputed, Andrea Yates killed her children to save them from a worse fate, killed some of them while young enough to be called infants, and what she did is a heinous act, thus she really deserves the death penalty or at least it would not be unexpected if she received this penalty by their lights, then what penalty is fitting for the aborting women who also kill their young to save them from a worse fate? And even more, what penalty is fitting for those in the media who do their part as accessories to make those abortions possible?
One of the woman commentators was also for Russell Yates to be prosecuted for negligence or manslaughter because he abetted his wife by not doing enough to protect his children. So, once more I ask, what penalty out to be suitable for our media accessories, for the crime of willful murder of the innocent, one of the four crimes that cry to Heaven for vengeance?The literary phrase is "vanity, all is vanity." This should be changed to "sophistry, all is sophistry or hypocrisy." By their fruits you shall know them, and mothers killing their born children are the fruit of mothers killing their unborn children. Abortion does not eliminate child abuse and unwantedness, it creates them ever anew and ever increasingly more ...
Perhaps I should be glad that we got a breather from the priestly pederasty scandal-mongering in the media, so the powers that be could persuade their audience to accept the morality and licitness of "gay adoption." This has been the week that shouldn't have ever been!
It started out as most promotions for the absurd and the abnormal go these days, a low key chat with some important personality who has an agenda and an interviewer too inflated with his own sense of perfection as a "No Spin" guy, which is in itself a form of spin. But setting this bit of hypocrisy aside, let us look at how the majority was "persuaded."
FOX's O'Reilly Factor scored quite a coup by getting the much celebrated Rosie O'Donnell of TV Talk fame, who is truly elevated above the mere benighted heterosexual majority because she is a lesbian and an adoptive parent, to come on his nightly show. She demurred that she "has too much importance," although she does not shrink from using her celebrity.
Abnormalcy is the cache today.
Those of you who read my columns know that a couple of years ago I wrote a long series exposing FOX News as a Trojan horse that would liberalize conservatives or traditionalists and demoralize them by introducing them to a steady barrage of pornography and homosexualization under the guise of News reporting and lure them into the one-world religion-government trap.
One of the stars in the FOX prime time line-up is Bill O'Reilly who claims to be Catholic while being for abortion in the first 3 months of life and for sterilization, contraception, etc. He also claims to believe that children do better in the natural family of a husband and wife. But he also absurdly says that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children as long as they are not vocal about it. He claims to be neither a liberal nor a conservative, at least on the air, because he is the No Spin Factor, a hard-hitting interviewer seeking out wrong-doers in the public sphere. At the same time he calls himself a softy; but too lean and mean to be a teddy bear I guess you could say he is slick rather than soft, like the proverbial snake in the grass. He strikes best when you least realize it.
This is what he did to his audience with Rosie O'Donnell, who recently "came out" that she was going to be "coming out" as they say. So American, a party to announce the invitation to a party. Nothing succeeds like excess disguised as "I couldn't care less," meaning I couldn't care more because I already care more than I dare admit.
There were two parts of the same show segment with O'Donnell "who grew up near Bill." One involved her liberalism in general and Hollywood and patriotism and guns, and the like. We will put this aside as it does not concern us here. I mention it to be factual, complete as possible and because her admission that she was changed somewhat by September 11 helped to establish her credentials as an okay spokesman for the "gay" cause to conservatives. Neither Bill nor Rosie put it like that, but this was the underlying dynamic. The part that does concern us in this column is "gay" adoptive parents.
The Factor, as usual did his "good cop, bad cop" routine, offering his belief that children are better raised in the natural family, first. O'Donnell countered that she worked with an adoption agency to place children in "gay" homes, something that went over the head of the so-called hard-nosed nosey interviewer of fluster and fume fame. He was not surprised or at least gave no evidence of it when she uttered the seemingly throw-away line that an adoption agency would have a lesbian helping it out in this way. I found that admission more shocking than anything else either she or he said during the rest of the interview. I wonder if I was the only one who picked up on this? Or was outraged?!
Then she explained that heterosexual couples do not want to adopt some hard-to-adopt children so homosexuals have to do it or are available. Of course, she failed to explain why single heterosexuals weren't available, why homosexuals escaped Original Sin and are therefore as a group so much superior in this department, or why it is that married couples who want to adopt have to go overseas in many cases to find children, who are precisely "hard to adopt" as it is said. And neither did the Factor. That wasn't the apparent point of the exercise, which was a cozy smooze session with two former New York neighbors facing one another in chairs with no usual desk between them. She would bend a little his way and he would bend a little her way and they were both so reasonable, don't you know!
Then O'Reilly wanted to know why she chose her very public vocal agenda for "gay" adoption, suggesting that she would have been better off by being quiet and proceeding with her aim in this manner. In other words, the snake was coming out the grass at last. I figured as much by then. You see, Rosie told the audience how she had to fight her advisors who told her not to come on the Factor, but she decided she had to help advance her cause. O'Reilly congratulated her for having the courage to do so.
Now Rosie is not stupid, not by a long shot. Don't you think that her appearance was more than just a calculated risk? Of course! She made comments about the people the Factor interviews and how he goes about doing so, thus I knew she must have known how he is for "gays" as long as they are quiet about it because no one should talk about their sexuality, although he doesn't seem to mind the "scream" of the near-nudity factor on FOX News in general and during family hour a lot of the time. She had to have known how he coaxes along the "gay" agenda so subtly, and that so many sodomites are regular guests.
She then promoted herself as the ideal role model for a "gay" mother. It is an axiom of our fallen human nature, that anyone who thinks he is better than others and bills himself "a role model," is precisely the sort of person who is most unlikely to be. The best mothers and fathers are those who know that they are not role models------in the ideal sense that O'Donnell so shamelessly promoted------although they are supposed to be, because they are subject to the effects of Original Sin and call daily on Heaven's help for the grace to do their best despite their sinfulness. In Rosie's case she thinks "she was born" with lesbianism and has an entire movement to help her think of her lifestyle as not sinful but a superior alternative in some situations. She seemed to be somewhat bitter about two-parent married families, that is, there was an inkling lurking around the edge of what she did not say and not as much as by what she did say. She also admitted that some "gays" would not make good parents, but did not really explain. By her standards? And what criteria? Celibate homosexuals? Something other? But homosexuality is a grave disorder, heterosexuality is not, no matter the failings of any particular married couple. A false comparison easily refutable but left unchallenged.
Well, by then I knew the direction the ill wind was blowing and I sailed off before the tempest took its toll. [There was about a minute to go to the commercial.] As I exited with the remote I said to myself, "FOX will have a poll tomorrow showing that the majority of Americans favor 'gay' adoption, even though today I know they do not, based on other polls."
Sure enough, folks, don't you just know, the next day and all day FOX ran heavily promoted segments of that Rosie "interview," so much so you could say it was the Rosie show on FOX. And the miracle of instant gratification otherwise known as the American sewer of television! A poll did exactly that. Rosie accomplished what she suspected she would all with the supposed curmudgeon O'Reilly's help. The other networks had clips on FOX's segment. And this is how the liberal agenda to revolutionize America into a complete cesspool of nihilism and the tyranny of abnormalcy and the degenerate goes, day after day on the network that promotes evil under the guise of "balance," and "fair." And we, the common people who think we are so conservative and for fair play are being swindled with our own cooperation. Fair play in the Catholic sense is that evil is exposed as evil. Satan must be having a chortle down there, if it's not too hot.
My next column on the secular media will be a more
and it will not be about FOX. After the other day I have
tuned the channel out, no normal person with rational faculties intact
and a sense of the sacred could possibly monitor this stuff! Enough is
enough! Watching FOX for the naive is a near occasion of sin, the
kind; for those who know the game, it is too demoralizing and I won't
can't do it one second more! [I
have to go back on this policy in order to monitor special issues of
interest to Catholics, but it is not a regular occurrence.]
The US Cardinals have just completed their press conference from the Vatican. Out of the eight sitting US Cardinals only two attended the briefing for the media. It would not have mattered if all eight had been present since this PR confab consisted of the usual obfuscation, referred to by Cardinal McCarrick as "wordsmithing." In other words the more the Prelates talked the more confused the journalists appeared to be, based on their pointed questions in response to the "communiqué." I, too have a few questions that would have been as ineptly, but inevitably, evaded, by nuance and more nuance. And as usual, our Prelates revealed more by what they did not say than by what they did say.
A few observations with questions are in order:
The flap over the pledge of the allegiance ruling in the California federal ninth district reveals how far astray from dependence on and allegiance to God the entire nation is. Supporters of the pledge with "under God" are numerous but they keep saying that the phrase is secular and historical, not truly religious, so the court should not have made the ruling. Even religious figures are saying this. Imagine! One famous legal analyst, himself a former judge, said that the phrase serves no religious purpose and thus the California panel of judges was wrong.
Well, if that's true, that is if they believe this, what an insult to God. "Under God," means under God. In other words He is sovereign and in charge and that every nation must bow before His will; that governments have a positive duty to ensure that God is worshipped and obeyed as He commands; in other words, more concerned with the rights of God, our Creator, than with pursuing a purely secular purpose. Every nation owes allegiance to Christ.I actually have more respect for those judges in California, because they actually believed that "under God" was religious and thus "unconstitutional." At least the two deciding judges believe that God means God. They may be wrong about the exclusionary intention of the Founders, but at least they have misbegotten logic on their side, unlike the self-righteous protesters! The anger and howls in the media and the unhallowed halls of Congress ring hollow-----they claim "under God," then proceed to accept the butchery of babes in the womb and worse. Heaven help us for this blasphemy! The forest fires and various disasters have only just begun to escalate! Prepare for a summer that burns, warning us of the fires of Hell that await those who mock God without repenting!
Anyone who tunes into television news on a regular basis knows what an aggravating experience it is, and that is when the media is doing what passes today for a professional job, which is becoming rarer. In the last month there are any number of news stories that are under-reported while ostensibly being over-reported:
The peril of the pre-born baby and the Georgia woman who reported a suspicious conversation from possible terrorists she overheard at a restaurant are just two that come to mind:
We will take the last first:
The take on this ubiquitous story is that the woman misread the comments that were never made in the first place. How's that again? Let's see if we can analyze the situation:
The woman, who has Palestinian relatives, was labeled a racist by family members of the three men who were detained by the police while the woman's report was checked out. The three men said she was not a racist, but the woman has to keep proving she's not a racist by listing her family heritage along racial and cultural lines, even though the media talking-heads admit she is not a racist. The Middle-Eastern Americans have not had to list their Western relatives, if any, to "prove" they are not racists. So one side gets to hurl an unwarranted charge without any repercussions while a citizen trying to do her duty in light of the changing nature of political realities is not permitted the same leeway. The [pardon our English] "damned if you do and damned if you don't" no win situation.
Meanwhile she insists, that while she admittedly heard only bits and pieces, she did hear the three men of Middle Eastern descent who are American medical students, laughing about 9/11 and making comments about 9/13 [the day which would follow the day she overheard the comments]. The men deny they even mentioned 9/11 in any context whatsoever, not even as a joke. Now while it is possible she could have misunderstood the context of any of the tidbits, either she heard "9/11" or she didn't. After all, they were less than a few feet away in the next booth, they were talking loud enough to hear and in English. So setting aside context and dealing with the actual words themselves, someone is lying or has a very bad short term memory problem.
It is worthy of mention that the woman is willing to take a polygraph exam in good faith while the three men say they will not under the advice of their four attorneys. She is under stress [requiring hospitalization for a night] simply for doing her duty as she understood it because she could be sued among other trevails such as death threats made against her and her family, the denials by the three men not withstanding, given the nature of pre-suit denials these days.
I think they were probably joking but realizing they could be under a threat of prosecution for a malicious hoax they changed their tune, understandable of course, but this places the woman under a cloud of being a meddling, over-reacting person. What would you and I have done in her place? Personally I would not have reported the conversation, as I would have presumed a prank as the conversation was loud enough to hear in a public place, but this is a judgment call and I cannot fault this woman in any way for following her conscience.
Given the media uproar and all the attention and hint at blame towards her, what citizen, is going to ever report this sort of thing again, especially knowing he will have to pay for an attorney out of his own pocket while the potential suspect will have a whole slew of free attorneys provided by various ethnic lobbying groups [in this case, Muslim]? This woman says she would do it again but she is rare, I think. And the media which likes to pride itself on being the public watch-dog has not focused on the lie, but rather, on the context which ignores the lie. The context is for the duly trained and appointed authorities to sort through. The tacit implication is she might be the liar since the media keep saying how "generous" the three students are toward her, claiming no ill-will, which may be true. [One actually said she fabricated the tidbits so I do not know how much generosity actually exists.] But only two media interviewers I heard talked of the woman's courage in coming forward, knowing she could be mistaken and ridiculed, but not daring to take the chance given 9/11.
Then there is the discrepancy about the attitude of the three men while under detainment for several hours, admittedly not a pleasant experience. They were called not very co-operative by an officer, but the men later praised the police while evading their own attitude refusing to have their car searched, which could be understandable, so why deny it or skirt around it by proffering a flimsy rationale [the car was packed by his mother]? Suddenly the media has anointed them as the next best thing to Saints. They may be, but we do not have enough knowledge to base that conclusion on. I just wonder why the woman is not given the same presumption?
Another discrepancy in their account is that they claim they never saw the woman in the first place, so they could not have "tried to pull her leg." Yet, they said that when they saw her face on television they remembered her from the restaurant. Now, which is it?
Well we all know the liberal drill by now, but one still has to ask, How's that again?!!
If you are confused by this one, the next story is a real whopper!
We are familiar with the phrase, "out of the mouths of babes." We could substitute "out of the mouths of reporters." A recent news item caught my attention: The destruction of "unwanted embryos." These embryos or pre-born babies in suspended laboratory condition result from people deciding they have the right to play God and make babies for "future use" for various reasons. The medical personnel are now faced with the "disposal" of these "unwanted or unused embryos". The CNN reporter forthrightly stated that part of the dilemma for the medical and legal experts was that some Americans considered these "potential persons" actual persons, and since these experts claim they are not sure which, they are faced with a dilemma.
How's that again? Let's see if we can expose the big lie that just missed by a hair being truly exposed by the media watch-dogs ever ready to keep us alert and up to the minute:
Laboratory "frozen embryos" may be people [and they are], not just potential people, so we should go slow in deciding whether, if and how to "dispose" of those "not used." Meanwhile other embryos, babies in utero or in residence in their mothers' wombs on a very short-term basis, unlike the laboratory babies, may be slaughtered at will for any reason deemed reasonable by the mothers, but not the fathers. Fathers are at least considered in the former situation. So some babies [embryo is a stage of development] are more equal than others.
The media has decided for us that frozen babies may be rationally discussed without bias, but unfrozen ones cannot and that any pro-lifer who does is "an extremist" as so termed by a Fox News "analyst" just this week. Of course the pro-abortion side must never be labeled extreme. The same FOX fox used the false opposition of anti-war and anti-abortion not pro-abortion and anti-abortion, apparently as I suspect, to avoid the necessary conclusion that if pro-life is extreme then pro-abort is necessarily as extreme. Of course truth is by definition extreme [in the sense it is exclusive] as it admits no error within.The CNN reporter may not have intended to reveal this much but as we said "out of the mouths of reporters." How's that again?!!!!
By now we are all too familiar with the Christmas "tradition" of the ACLU's filing lawsuits in the attempt to remove all signs of Christ from the public square. To date it has succeeded in establishing that the Jews may have their religious Hanukkah symbol, the Menorah, but that Christians can only have a Santa or a tree, not religious symbols for Christmas. Nativity scenes have been verboten. This year is no different except that the annual sordid affair has been "kicked up a notch" or two as a well known chef is wont to say.
Not only has the far left wing organization filed a suit to have a Missouri parish remove its Nativity scene [totally bizarre] but a self-named Catholic in the media, Bill O'Reilly, has unwittingly joined the ACLU's efforts. It goes like this:
The ACLU [rightly] claims that Christmas is a religious holiday and that government may not endorse such a holiday as the ACLU considers this "imposition of religion." O'Reilly, of the pornography pusher, Rupert Murdoch's empire, FOX News Channel to be specific, has weighed in to declare that Christmas is not a religious holiday but a secular one; that Christ is a philosopher and that the holiday honors Him as a philosopher and not a deity.
Imagine this! I do not know where O'Reilly received his Catholic education, but this is blasphemy! I give the ACLU credit, at least it knows religion when it sees it, unlike "the Factor" who does not even seem to know pornography when he sees it, let alone religion. Only Christ the Savior King can save us, not a secular philosopher. The ACLU knows this, which makes them "more Catholic" in their thinking than this particular Catholic. While the ACLU may be out of line in their reasoning of the application of the First Amendment, at least they are consistent about Christ.
Now if only some organization could have standing to sue
blasphemy! In the USA blasphemy is protected, Christians less so. Only
in Amerika! And Muslim countries, of course, like Saudi Arabia, except
blasphemy, by its definition, is not protected there either. "God bless
America," they say; if only America could "bless" God. This year we are
more in need of the Infant Savior than ever! Pray for the conversion of
Bill O'Reilly ... and for ourselves, if we are still sending
cards with Santas and elves.
We've all heard it. “Hillbillies like to keep their women barefoot and pregnant.” What most people don't know is that abortionists want to keep women ignorant and aborted. Why? Because to them women are Raw Meat.
Look at the record. Mindless opposition to informed consent for women considering abortion infects the entire abortion industry, from the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to “your friendly neighborhood abortionist” and their cheering section, The National Organization For Women [NOW], the National Abortion Rights Action League [NARAL], and all the rest, including institutions corrupted by legalized abortion, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [which has become the trade organization for the abortion industry], the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the National Education Association, the Democratic Party, labor unions, and virtually every governmental department dealing with health and population, statewide, nationwide and global.
Why this mindless opposition? Money. Money cloaked in a bankrupt ideology that asserts, in the face of all reason and all statistics to the contrary: “Abortion liberates women and will save the world from overpopulation.” These are the “principles” we will hear proclaimed. But we've all heard this too: “When someone says it isn't the money, it's the principles involved, you can be sure of one thing. It's the money.”
Abortion is Big Business. Surgical abortions in America reap a billion dollars annually, and when chemical abortions are included, from The Pill to RU486, many tens of billions of dollars are reaped. Add to this, the “care” provided by the medical industry to women injured in body and mind by abortions, and the profits run into the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Now include the decades-old programs of our Federal Government that blackmail Third World countries into reducing their population as a condition for participating in our “foreign aid” programs. Then the profits from abortion are in the trillions of dollars annually. Once again a bogus “principle” masks grubbing for money: “If you reduce your population you can raise yourselves to our standard of living.” What our government really wants is unlimited access to Third World resources which we need to sustain our economic and military supremacy, and would eventually make the Third World our rivals if those nations used their own resources to sustain their own growing populations. Nobody has bothered to total the enormous corporate profits and payrolls of our government and military establishments that accrue from this exploitation [“rape” is more accurate] of the Third World, and that can be “maxed out” by easy access to abortion overseas.
Is there any form of filth or profligacy that isn't infected by abortion? If you cut even cautiously into any abscess in our society, you will find, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light-----an abortionist! Let’s look at just a few examples.
Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College, has documented beyond doubt that abortion is a primary cause of breast cancer among women. Breast cancer as a leading killer of women is growing rapidly in America and worldwide, especially in the First World. Yet the medical, educational, and media establishments keep this fact from women, especially here in America. Why? Money! The abortion maggots are crawling all over these institutions, which are now rotting bodies. Medical treatments for breast cancer, and treatments for all the other mental and physical diseases linked to abortion, are endless and endlessly profitable, provided the Raw Meat, women, can be kept ignorant of the real source for their various abortion-caused illnesses. Even the American Cancer Society and our government suppress this information. Why? Follow the money!
Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics has exposed the nationwide policy of Planned Parenthood to promote statutory rape by knowingly and secretly aborting the babies of minor girls made pregnant by adult men. Why? Money! Planned Parenthood’s abortionists kill more Americans every four months than were killed in all twelve years of the Vietnam War. Abortion is Big Business at Planned Parenthood, but it needs a fresh supply of Raw Meat [ignorant women and girls] to sustain and increase corporate profits. That is why Planned Parenthood has an aggressive marketing program to get into our schools with contraceptives, “confidential” counseling, and pornographic sex “education” that are all aimed at getting our children copulating at earlier and earlier ages, knowing that it is just a matter of time before the young girls show up at its abortion Auschwitzes. It viciously opposes abstinence-only programs in schools. Why? Follow the money!
Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute has provided shocking documentation proving that agencies of the U.S. Government have been funding coercive abortion policies in Communist China and coercive sterilization policies in Third World countries such as Peru. The sterilization program in Peru has been funded by USAID, and it targets ignorant Indian women in the high Andes and in the Amazon basin. Key to success of the program is not letting women know that the government “health care” they receive will make them incapable of bearing children. This is genocide aimed at the indigenous people and it is financed by American taxpayers. Genocide on a much larger scale is the one-child policy of Communist China, enforced by coerced abortion and funded by American taxpayers. The Chinese are one-fifth of the human race!
One day the communists will be overthrown and these abortion survivors will view the American people as promoting this policy they will rightly see as racist. In the meantime, corporate America is cutting deals with the Chinese communists to take advantage of cheap Chinese labor, often slave labor, with forced abortions keeping Chinese women chained to low-paying factory jobs. Most revealing of all, NOW is an accomplice in this exploitation of Third World women. It knows these women are Raw Meat being thrown to the running dogs of corporate America, and nods its approval. Why? Follow the money!Terry Hughes TJHiceman@aol.com