When Did Murders Of Convenience Become Okay?

Thankfully, I live in a state where only two theaters were playing the propaganda film Obvious Child.  The film which is described as a romantic comedy tells the tale of a stand up comedienne who after a one night affair is pregnant.  The solution: abortion.

The director claims that this isn't a pro-abortion film, but while denying the obvious the screen play includes dialogue where our "heroine" is told to "kill it out there tonight" before a set at the local comedy club.  The "clever" retort is that she has an appointment to do that tomorrow.

I am blown away.

At what point did the pro-abortion lobby admit that killing the innocent child is what they do?  Second question, when did that become acceptable?  Third, what other murders of convenience are acceptable?

Those who clamor for the rights of women and the War on Women should look around.  It isn't conservatives and the pro-life movement that is engaging in war.  If you want to talk about the peace movement, come talk to those of us in the pro-life network.  If you want to talk about death and war, you should take the blinders off and start looking in the mirror because that is where the war is.

Companies Are People...Or Not.

So, where are all my court watchers?  This Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) term is about to get interesting.

This Tuesday, the justices will hear cases about whether or not the government can mandate a company to provide birth control to its employees via the Affordable Coverage Act, known as Obamacare.  Not being a lawyer, I am not sure which way this case goes.

It would seem that the court has two very distinct directions in could lean on.

One, it just said the ACA was legal and appropriate in one of the worst decisions I think I have ever witnessed.  Chief Justice Roberts basically wrote a defense of the ACA on grounds that weren't argued.  He provided the judicial activism conservatives love to hate.  That decision provides the groundwork that the government can tell you what you will buy and when and how whenever it wants to.  The loss of freedom in that basic decision is appealing.  It is almost as bad as the fact that four justices agreed that the government has the right to tell you to buy Coke or Pespi.  What?

The issue here is that there are companies who do not want to provide birth control to their employees saying it goes against their religious beliefs.  That is a serious fundamental question that will make other things interesting to like can I deny you the right to service at my restaurant if I find anything about you contradicts my religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, the Citizens United opinion was clear that companies could spend money on elections because to do otherwise would deprive them of their right to speech.  What company has a right to political speech?  Well, according to SCOTUS, they all do.  That being the case, it should not that big a jump to say companies like Hobby Lobby should also have the right to religious beliefs as well.

Since the First Amendment covers both the right to speech and religious choice one should not be inclined to believe this would be a big jump, but this will be another interesting one for sure.

Hold onto your seats folks...this one will be interesting.

Illness

The sickness continues.

I am not sure how else to describe what I saw earlier in the Washington Times, but depravity and illness.  Mostly mental.

A non-profit group in Washington, D.C. - The DC Abortion Fund (DCAF) - offered a small momento to those who contributed on an ongoing basis to their needs.  A necklace with a small hanger attached.

I guess I am silly enough to first wonder how much difficulty the IRS gave this group in establishing it as a non-profit.  Groups aimed at educating on the Constitution or balanced budgets can't seem to get non-profit status, but I bet it wasn't too hard for this group aimed at removing rights from those waiting to be born.

Part two though is why?  Why would you use a symbol of death as a sign to point to as something positive.  How did your world end up so upside down that you consider ending another life, usually for your own self advancement, a good thing?

At what point to people consider that they are celebrating the taking of an innocent?

With tens of millions killed since Roe v. Wade took over the landscape, why is it we celebrate the coat hanger?  Would we do this with the Nazi swastika?  Would we celebrate Joseph Stalin killing millions of his countrymen as a positive?  Of course not.

I say of course not because NPR would run sad documentaries outlining the carnage of Stalin today, but they remain deafeningly silent on the slaughter committed year after year in the United States.  They wring their hands over the death penalty of convicted criminals, but waste no breath on the death penalty against children.

Where is the ACLU?  They stand ready to defend those incarcerated from the evils of prison wardens who deny prisoners cable television, but do they defend those victims of Kermit Gosnell?

Truly, there is an illness in the land and it can be found in an organization that would solicit and accept donations from citizens to kill their neighbors.  I wonder when we will find a cure.





.

Forty-one and counting...

On the anniversary of the legalization of abortion, Roe v. Wade, I wonder how our President will mark the anniversary.  Two years ago he chose to attempt to argue the economic value of killing children before they are born.

Once again I am embarrassed for a man who says one thing and then does another. He talks about everyone having a right to healthcare, but then argues for the economic incentives of allowing children to be killed in utero rather than being healthy, responsible citizens who contribute to society. While 50,000,000 plus children have been killed since Roe v. Wade we wonder aloud about why we have a society that doesn't support public education, a society that does not teach humanities or protection of our natural resources.  Is it any surprise that motorists continue to litter highways when our culture defends the throwing away of human lives?  Again and again you see cases where either mothers will throw away their child's life, will subject themselves to brutal acts of barbarism to kill their own children.  Are we then surprised when fathers have no connection to the sexual act that creates children.  Sorry ladies, your sexual revolution has not given you equality with men in a positive manner, you have simply let men off the hook for their reproductive actions by endorsing a path of personal ease.

According to the CDC, 85% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women.  Again, the sexual revolution has allowed you your rights to multiple partners, but it hasn't led to a happier family.

Additionally, this week was also about celebrating Martin Luther King's legacy towards equality.  What equality is there when black women are nearly five times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman?  What equality is there when a Hispanic woman is nearly three times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman?  These statistics show a pattern of genocide of two races in the United States.  If this weren't about sexual "rights" we would be horrified by the numbers.

And for those who are ready to parade Hillary Clinton and the democratic party, let's be clear, they could care less about your sexual rights.  Abortion is simply an easier path to checkbook independence.  Abortion for white, protestant women is clear from the statistics with seventy-five percent of respondents saying "having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities."  I suspect there is no comment to the idea that an abortion will interfere with that child's future work, school, or other responsibilities.

Unfortunately, we are not at fifty million lost lives and counting.  This is the forty-first anniversary of a decision that shows a country's indifference towards its most unprotected.  Forty-one years and counting...

No Guns or Life In New York

I was taught that in America, we live in a Constitutional Republic.  You will forgive me when some days I think we actually live in a pseudo-monarchy.

In the Northeast, you have the Kennedys.  In Arkansas and later New York, you have the Clintons.  Jeb Bush may have represented Florida, but Texas clearly belongs to the Bush clan.  And returning to New York, you have the Cuomos.  Unfortunately, the latest governor of the State of New York does not have his father's same understanding of abortion.  Perhaps, he was too busy campaigning for his dad, Mario Cuomo, on Sundays to learn his catechesis on life and perhaps he was just too busy in law school to understand freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment.

Recently, during a radio broadcast, Governor Cuomo stated that people who are pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment "have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

The Governor is showing that speech is limited in New York and might be why people are leaving his state.  America is supposed to be the land of the free, a land that is open and strong enough to support dissenting opinion, without trampling it.

While Governor Cuomo tried to walk his statements back, can you imagine the outcry if Rick Perry had said those who support abortion aren't welcome in Texas?  Can you imagine the outcry if someone argued that those who don't support gun owner rights should leave the country?

It is amazing to me that anyone would utter these phrases in America, but perhaps discourse really has gotten that bad.  If that is the case, I guess New York really doesn't have any life left.

Miracles Do Happen

People ask all the time do miracles still happen and I would have to say they do.  In their Sunday, 12 January 2014 editorial, USA Today's editorial board criticizes the President for his attack on the Little Sisters Of The Poor.

While I missed the original editorial in my post on the subject, it is clear that we see things similarly. As their line notes "nuns and birth control just don't mix."

I did not realize the disparity, but as USA Today notes, the government is losing 95% of its cases.  In nineteen out of twenty cases, courts are issuing stays to non-profits from having to comply against their consciousness.  When President Obama says the American people want this, I think me might just be incorrect.  Worse for Obama and Co. is this statement:

In several cases, even if the government wins, the whole exercise will not result in a single woman getting a single free contraceptive, because under a different law, the insurers themselves are exempt. So what exactly does the administration hope to gain?

It shows the militant nature of those against the policy that they would rather pick a fight with nuns than simply allow them to care for the elderly poor as they have done for years.

The Biggest Threat

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As you walk down the street are you afraid?  If you live near a convent, you should be.  Nuns everywhere wearing their habit and holding their rosary are ready to pounce.  That’s right…if you believe the mainstream media, the Little Sisters Of The Poor are about to derail the brilliant piece of legislation which is the Affordable Care Act.

In a recent piece of glaring anti-Catholic fervor, Alex Wagner of MSNBC actually referred to a group of nuns as a threat.  And what atrocity had these poor women committed?  Well , they would not put pen to paper to sign off on a third party providing contraception services to its employees as it is against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church of which they are affiliated.  (You should not be surprised from MSNBC to see no one on the show defending nuns from the attacks of Howard Dean and Cecile Richards - two who support abortion on demand and have never been willing to discuss any of the protections and safety issues a large majority of Americans want when it comes to abortion.)

When I first started this blog with a single post, I made note of Henry VIII and his Succession Act.  That piece of legislation basically allowed him to pull England from Rome and form what would become the modern day Episcopal Church.  When one of his chief supporters found himself in disagreement with the legislation that would ultimately lead him to divorce and the marriage to Anne Boleyn, he didn’t write a book as former Defense Secretary Gates did, he didn’t run to Fox News to get his side heard, he simply retired back, but this was not good enough for King Henry VIII who required him to sign onto his marriage to the future headless queen.

Similarly, Obama says you can disagree with me, but you still have to provide the services, because contraception which is widely available should be subsidized by those who find it anathema, which brings us to the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor.

What is it the Little Sisters of the Poor do anyway?  Well, in both Baltimore and Denver they care for the elderly poor in nursing homes for those who can not afford a nursing home replete with its poor care and regular infections.  The Little Sisters prefer that the elderly not be warehoused with uncaring providers, but by persons such as themselves who have abandoned world pleasure to care for the elderly.  This would seem to be a goal of the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act.  Instead it is the starting point to regular anti-Catholic bigotry which few in the media seem willing to call out.

In a recent, US News piece, Jamie Stiehm goes on a personal attack against Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, for issuing a preliminary injunction on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Again and again, her histrionics go on about the six Catholics who sit on the Supreme Court and the poor Jews who must contend with them.  The anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic rage she has should be grounds for termination in almost any other field, but US News stands by its “reporter.”

What is amazing is first, Justice Sotomayor’s move was only to stay the penalties to be issued by the IRS until the legal arguments could be made for and against the issue of whether or not nuns, who are caring for the poor elderly, should be made to provide contraception against their conscience.  Two and equally interesting, Justice Sotomayor is hardly the face of the conservative wing of the court so why would you blast her so publicly unless your argument just that desperate?  Could it be that the dream of big government liberals could come crashing down because of the efforts of a few nuns?  Not efforts to stop the law of course, just efforts of nuns to care for the sick and the old in their way, without interference from a US government who hasn’t been able to provide adequate healthcare to the elderly for decades or adequate care to our returning military veteran’s for generations?

If you argument is that weak, perhaps the Little Sisters of the Poor are a threat and your law is about to topple like the Tower of Babel.