data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4e2a4/4e2a4a27d99e991cfba1af15d601027c79417b38" alt=""
O.K. I totally understand why they are 'integrating' Sharia law.....they're terrified! What is Brown thinking???
(What do you call someone who 'terrifies'?)
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." (Sir Winston Churchill)
...if Aunt Zeituni had settled in Wasilla — say, in lodgings across the way from Bristol Palin's boyfriend's ex-girlfriend's uncle's sled dog's veterinarian's ammunition dealer — the fact that she's an "illegal immigrant" might have come out a lot sooner, even if only from the Atlantic Monthly investigative unit driving by and asking her whether Joe the Plumber had ever serviced Trig's real mother's double-wide.
On the other hand, what could be more American than an Undocumented First Family? If I'd known it was this easy, I'd have run myself.
I was away for much of the summer and, when I returned, the entire campaign felt like an absurd satire I wasn't quite up to speed on. But truly, in a world in which the many illegal foreign contributions to the leading candidate's unprecedented fundraising include his own deportation-ordered aunt, satire is dead.
By the way, one thing you can say for certain is that Aunt Zeituni's deportation order will never be enforced. Demanding proof of identity at polling stations, requiring address verification for credit-card contributions, getting hung up on foreigners donating to candidates, enforcing deportation orders . . . To raise such footling technicalities as "the law" is racist and so, in a squeamish politically correct culture, we let it slide, even as it corrupts the integrity of the democratic process and the defining act of a free society...
Obama says he is a "Christian" yet, he supports abortion--all abortion! He says women have a right to kill their own children if they choose to do so. But GOD says that is a lie!
GOD says children are a gift. Psalm 127:3, says: Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward. In Jeremiah 1:5, GOD says "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou came forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..."
Psalm 139:13-16 - For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... my substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret... Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written...
Regarding abortionists and those who kill unborn children, Exodus 21:22-25 states: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished... and goes on to say: And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Here's what God also says if anyone kills a fatherless child. Exodus 22:22-24 – If thou afflict them in any wise and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot...
So what God does Obama worship?...
Neither analysis considers a more closely-related example: enforced cannibalism. The use of tissue to generate vaccines which may save other's lives is a kind of cannibalism. On October 13, 1972, a plane with 40 people aboard, all Catholic, crashed in the Andes. Due to the total lack of food in the snowy wasteland, the survivors of the crash were forced to eat the bodies of those who had died in order to maintain their own life. The Church ruled the cannibalism to be acceptable in this instance, because the bodies of the slain were treated with great reverence and the need for sustenance was life-threatening. While it is true that most of those whose bodies were eaten had not given their consent, it is also true that none were murdered; their deaths were unforeseen and unpreventable. By removing the issue of will, this example better corresponds to the abortion event, while simultaneously highlighting the moral problem: the manner of death and the reverence due the human body in death must be considered.
"What we are pointing out is that all Christians do not have the same view. We have, for example, a difference even on the question of contraception. The Roman Catholics do not sanction contraception, we do," said Lewis.
She said her church had no problem with abortion in instances where a woman was raped or where incest was committed.
The reverend also said there was not a problem in a case where medical opinion pointed to severe disability and where the potential mother or child was at risk.
However, Lewis argued that unwanted pregnancies should be avoided and abstinence should be considered and pursued.
She also encouraged the responsible use of contraceptives.
Attempting to strike a compromise, the church leader said the society should raise the debate to another level.
Lewis said it might be justified that a pro-life stance does not prevent one from embracing the concept of pro-choice.
While supporting the draft legislation to legalise abortion, she called for two amendments to the bill.
Under Section Five of the legislation, dealing with 'termination of pregnancy in special categories', the church group wants an amendment to indicate that parents' consent was not necessary in all cases for minors over the age of 16 years. This, however, should be subject to professional counselling.
The church group also wants the bill to be modified to allow for the training of other persons for counselling, such as members of the clergy, who do not oppose abortion.
Hilary Nicholson, head of Women's Media Watch, said it was unfortunate that the ongoing debate on abortion had attracted the labels pro-life and pro-abortion.
She said her organisation was pro-choice and pro-life...
..."Even after praying and fasting for 40 days - and being involved in vigils that in many cities went round the clock, seven days a week -many of the people who are participating in this campaign simply don't want to see it end," David Bereit says.
"Tens of thousands of people have prayed in front of abortion facilities, many for the first time," the campaign director explained. "They see the impact of that peaceful presence, and they yearn to keep going."
Beginning September 24, intensive 40 Days for Life campaigns have been conducted in more than 175 communities in 47 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa and two Canadian provinces.
Bereit said the biggest success of the campaign may have been jumpstarting efforts by existing groups to do more in their community and taking existing efforts that had grown stale and given them new life...
..."People across the country have expressed an interest in getting involved in the effort to end abortion," said Bereit, "but far too often, they didn't know where to start. 40 Days for Life provided a starting point. Now they've seen what can happen; and now that they've taken that first step, they're eagerly anticipating additional opportunities for continuing their pro-life outreach."
"We know of at least 441 lives that were saved from abortion as a result of the 40 Days for Life effort thus far," said Bereit. "But those are not the only lives that have been changed."
"We hear every day about people seeking help who have been dealing with abortion experiences - some of them have been hurting for more than 30 years," he added. "There are people in the abortion industry who have been touched by this effort. They, too, are witnessing the power of prayer at work first hand."
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk will make a special appearance during a pro-life rally in front of the Women's Med Center, 1401 E. Stroop Road, on Sunday, Nov. 2, according to Mary Britt, committee member for the 40 Days for Life campaign.
The rally marks the end of the 40 Days for Life campaign, which is a national campaign that focuses on 40 days of prayer, fasting, peaceful vigil at abortion facilities and 40 days of grassroots educational outreach.
Rally events begin at 1 p.m. with Pilarczyk leading the rosary — using a beaded necklace to count out loud a series of prayers. Chandra White-Cummings of the Dayton Right to Life's Black Americans for Life will also speak at the event.
As promised , I took copious notes last night at the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs (CCEPA) debate on human rights and free speech. Rather than pronounce my verdict on the evening, I’ve decided initially to share my notes online so everyone can draw their own conclusions.
This post will cover only the opening remarks of the four speakers. This portion occupied about 30 minutes of a two-hour meeting, so there will be more to come.
NB: These are my notes, not an official transcript. I stand by the accuracy of these notes as an honest reflection of what was said, but what appears below should not taken as a verbatim record of the proceedings. (I have speakers using the pronoun “I” for convenience, not to suggest direct quotation.)
CCEPA will make available a DVD of the evening’s discussion in about three weeks.
I estimate that 80-100 people came to the hall at St Mary’s University, which has a capacity of approximately 300.
The four panelists spoke in this order:
Dan Leger, Director of News Content, Halifax Chronicle Herald
Krista Daley, Director and CEO, Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC)
Mark Mercer, Professor of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University.
Pearl Eliadis, Montreal Human Rights Lawyer
The moderator was Kevin Kindred, Lawyer and Chair of the Nova Scotia Rainbow Action Project.
The presentation began with Chris Stover, General Manager, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs, who welcomed us to the evening’s event and introduced the moderator.
Kevin Kindred Opening Remarks
He welcomed us to a debate on an issue that is important but sometimes volatile. He will try to be as impartial moderator. He himself is a lawyer and human rights activist on behalf of homosexual rights, but will put that aside this evening. He will try to ensure that we hear from all four panelists equally.
The human rights vs free speech controversy has been called the perfect storm of public policy issues.
He mentioned three legal cases that, in his view, exemplify the issues:
1. Stephen Boissoin, complaint brought by Darren Lund
-case decided in Alberta
2. Craig Harrison, complaint brought by Richard Warman
-case heard by Canadian HRC
3. Macleans, complaint brought by three Muslim students
-complaint considered by three jurisdictions, none of which sustained the complaint: Canada, Ontario, BC
Each speaker will make an opening statement. Then I will ask questions of the speakers, then members of the audience will be able to ask questions.
Dan Leger Opening Statement
I’m not an expert in human rights; I’m a journalist. I receive complaints and special pleadings about newspaper articles every day; people insist on a right to rebut or dispute.
We live in a marketplace of ideas. Some people don’t like that. I am a small-l liberal....
One of the biggest and most long-lasting "changes" to expect if Barack Obama becomes president will be the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices across the country, all with lifetime tenure.
Mr. Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants - those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."
Like so many things Mr. Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think - and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are rather than on the facts and the law? If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex? The kind of criteria Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime neither they nor anybody else committed.
Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines your legal rights? What kind of judges are we talking about? ....
This Friday is Halloween, so now is a good time to highlight a Catholic way to celebrate the ancient Christian feast of All Saints.
The tenth annual All Hallows’ Eve Celebration will take place at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., beginning at 7:30 p.m. Friday evening.
Organizers expect a crowd of 400 young Catholic adults to attend the event, making it the most popular event of the year at the Dominican House of Studies.
Basically, the idea is to mark the occasion with a vigil that reflects the authentic Christian meaning of Halloween, by focusing on the saints who have born witness to the faith since the earliest days of the Church. The event features readings from the lives of the saints, a homily, and the singing of Compline night prayers by the house’s Dominican friars.
After the service, the young people will have the opportunity to mingle with the friars in their refectory.
“The popularity of this event among the young is a testament to the fact that these holy men and women from ages past continue to have the power to captivate,” Dominican Father Steven Boguslawski, president of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, said in an Oct. 27 press release. “These saints, long removed from the world, continue to draw us to God.”...
A leading pro-life group has uncovered a questionnaire the campaign of Barack Obama filed with a pro-abortion web site. The survey makes it clear that Obama's national health care plan would include abortions and that they would likely be funded at taxpayer expense.
The Obama campaign responded to a question about health care from the pro-abortion RH Reality Check web site.
"Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care," the campaign said, using the phrase that abortion advocates employ to refer to abortion.
"His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service," the Obama campaign added.
The Obama camp also made it clear that any private insurance companies wanting to participate would also be required to provide abortion coverage.
"And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way," the Obama campaign responded...
READ THE WHOLE THING!!
One can argue that every presidential election is a “historic” election. But some are more historic than others. Daniel Henninger had a provocative column yesterday making a strong case that this one is a “tipping point” between America continuing as an entrepreneurial society or going the way of the European “social democracies.” He cites the late Senator Pat Moynihan who said the big difference between Europe and America is that the former gives priority to equality and the latter to liberty. I’m not sure that Henninger is right in saying there would be no turning back after four or eight years of President Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress imposing their passion for a government-directed program of redistribution and social coordination, but the future he depicts is both plausible and ominous.
There is another dimension of this ideological passion for the expansion of government control that is at least equally worrying. It has to do with the freedom of religion in the American constitutional order and the indispensable part that religion plays in checking the ambitions of the modern democratic state. Obama has said that he thinks it is “tragic” that the Supreme Court has declined to advance the cause of redistributive justice. That refers, of course, to economic redistribution. But the language of healing divisions and bringing us all together—under government auspices—applies also to the social dynamics of American society.
There are several issues, all closely related to religion, on which Obama, for all his undoubtedly sincere talk about his own faith and the importance of religion in public life, is manifestly hostile to the vibrant diversity of American life...
THE CASE made by University College Cork for authourising embryonic stem-cell research was akin to a defense by someone found in possession of child pornography, Jim Walsh (FF) said.
The college governors' decision was strongly attacked by some Government members and defended with equal vehemence.
Ronan Mullen described the decision as astonishing and warned that it could have "queered the pitch for the Lisbon Treaty".
Mr Walsh said that while he would acknowledge there had been a failure to legislate, he was not persuaded by the UCC spokesman who had argued that it was an acceptable procedure because the embryo was destroyed prior to the removal of the stem-cell strips.
"I see that as analogous to a situation where somebody who is caught with child pornography would claim that they were not instrumental in the abuse of the children, as they only subsequently came into possession of the actual pornography itself."
As Catholics and supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy, we appreciate Archbishop Charles Chaput’s clarification in Sunday’s Post that he is speaking as a private citizen when he takes issue with Sen. Obama and his supporters.
We had supposed that since the official archdiocesan newspaper last week included a voter guide supporting John McCain from a group calling itself Colorado Family Institute (different from the guide promoted by the U.S. bishops), the archbishop might, perhaps, be attempting to influence the choices of Catholic voters.
We honor the archbishop’s right to support the candidates and issues he believes best represent his deepest values, and applaud his recognition that not all Catholics will make his choices their own.
We also appreciate the respect for primacy of conscience in our decision-making, as enunciated by Josef Ratzinger, now our current pope, Benedict XVI, who wrote: “Over the pope, as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else — if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”
We are making our ballot choices as adults and as faithful citizens who have weighed the issues in light of the gospels and the justice teachings of our church. We encourage all Catholics to do likewise.
Sister Mary A. Coyle, Denver
Sister Mary Ann Cunningham, Denver
...(Reporter)the issue of the human rights commission, we have seen both federal and provincial human rights commissions taking media organizations, journalists before them to justify what they have written and I was wondering if your government will be touching that topic?
....(Harper)In terms of the free speech issues and some of the activities of human rights commissions, I think that everyone has had some concerns about this. This is a complicated area of law, balancing what most people understand to mean by free speech with obvious desire to not have speech that would be intended to incite hatred towards particular groups or individuals. I think some of the most egregious cases, if you actually look at this, are in provincial human rights commission and obviously, you know I can't control or comment on that. I think there has been some - I think the Canadian human rights commission has been moderating some of what - some of its practices a little bit recently to respond to some of these concerns and I hope that will continue.
..On Oct. 7, the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, San Diego Bishop Robert Brom officially erected St. Anne Church at 621 Sicard St. as a “personal parish” for Catholics in the diocese who prefer the extraordinary form of the Mass in Latin. A “personal parish” has no geographical boundaries, which means any Catholic living in the diocese may join.
Bishop Brom turned over the parish to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), a society of apostolic life approved in 1988 by Pope John Paul II specifically dedicated to continued use of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite – also known as the Latin or Tridentine Mass...
According the Sun-Times, the tension between hosts Joy Behar and Elizabeth Hasselbeck has become so thick that the two women refuse to speak to one another off camera in contrast to their usual habit of screaming at one another on camera.
The beef between the two began as the presidential election heated up. Hasselbeck is die-hard McCain-Palin supporter, while the more left-leaning Behar favors the Obama-Biden ticket.
But last week, following Hasselbeck’s campaigning for Palin, Behar apparently made a joke at Hasselbeck’s expense, angering the staunch conservative, the Sun-Times said.
According to the Sun-Times, Behar pulled out a ratty green coat to mimic the outfit Hasselbeck wore at the rally. Mocking Hasselbeck’s statement on the now-infamous $150,000 shopping spree for Palin paid for by the Republican National Committee, Behar quipped that Hasselbeck “spends that much in a month!”
Hasselbeck, for her part, took a stab at her co-hosts on the campaign trail, noting that she was happy to be at the rally so she could speak without being interrupted...
A lot of alleged, self-proclaimed, so-called "conservatives" have been abandoning John McCain to support Barack Obama, and many of them have cited McCain's choice as his running mate of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
I've been thinking about what I'd have to believe in order to make a jump like that:
10. That two years as the chief executive of a state is less relevant experience for the presidency than two years as a back-bench senator with no major legislative accomplishments.
9. That a man who is revered as a "maverick" because he pisses off social conservatives is never allowed to do anything that pisses me off.
8. That the man who included his time in elementary school and his undergraduate degree in international relations among his presidential qualifications knows more about foreign policy than a war hero with two and a half decades in the Senate, or even more than a woman who for two years has received intelligence briefings on Russian incursions into Alaskan airspace...
... a non-religious case to be made against assisted suicide, and it gets stronger the closer one looks at the Oregon experiment, as a team of Oregon psychiatrists recently did. Beginning in 2006, the psychiatrists started interviewing patients who wanted to make use of the assisted suicide legislation. They discovered that one in four patients had undiagnosed clinical depression.
In most places, people who express a desire to die are evaluated for depression, and receive treatment for it. In places where assisted suicide is practised, such patients might instead receive a fatal dose of barbiturates. The researchers discovered that in 2007, not one "of the people who died by lethal ingestion in Oregon had been evaluated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist."
This secular case against assisted suicide is that assisted suicide discriminates against the sick and disabled. If an able-bodied woman tells her family that she's suicidal, they will surely intervene with psychiatric help. But if a wheelchair-bound woman with Lou Gehrig's disease tells her family the same thing, they might assume, based on social prejudices about disabilities, that the request was a sensible one...
Many of my friends from my days as a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue have been asking me lately how I can resist supporting an Obama presidency.
My answer--much to their horror--has been simple: "Because I used to be a Marxist-feminist-postmodernist ideologue, and I understand the party-line of the movement:
-- destroy the notion of objective truth with appeals to diversity, difference, and multi-cultism;
-- eliminate the possibility of rational discourse by elevating the affective above the rational;
-- convert all public political discourse into emotive appeals to race, gender, class, and sexuality;
-- define "freedom" as "freedom from constraint" and never as "freedom to do what is right;"
-- attack all secular opposition as "oppressive, self-centered, and fearful;"
-- attack all religious opposition as "superstitious, fundamentalist, and ignorant;"
-- use "white liberal guilt" to attack economic growth and prosperity;
-- feed over-educated narcissism with the prospect of ruling, finally, and ruling more than the meager resources of an English/women's studies department at a state university."
Why do I oppose Obama? Simple. His political positions are evil. This man believes that it is morally acceptable to kill children. He believes that it is morally permissible to attempt to kill a child in the womb, fail, and then leave the child to die once delivered alive. This man believes that all Americans should participate in his evil by being forced to pay for the genocide of abortion with federal tax dollars. That the overwhelming majority of children murdered in the womb are black seems not to concern him at all. He has promised to eliminate all democratically enacted laws against the murder of children by signed the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" if elected. This will enshrine the Supreme Court's 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade into federal law.
That the MSM has chosen again and again to ignore, obfuscate, distort, and lie about his connections to domestic terrorists, international Marxists, local communists in Chicago, and his involvement with other radical left-wing groups like the vote-stealing ACORN cadre only adds to my deep suspicison and unease. Though these are more strictly political concerns and do not rise to the level of his promotion of child murder, they are nonetheless deeply distrubing to this American citizen.
Now, before you pop off in the comboxes about Catholic priests not being political, let me say this: at no time during my solemn profession as a Dominican friar in 2003 or during my priestly ordination in 2005 did I EVER renounce my U.S. citizenship; my right to free speech; my right to the free practice of my religion; or the free expression of my opinions in a public milieu. Nor should you take my opposition to the evil of the possibility of an Obama presidency as an endorsement of a John McCain presidency.
If you want me to support Obama you will need to demonstrate to me one thing and one thing only: how does the actual murder of 1.7 million children every year in the U.S. (and the inevitable increase in that number if B.O. is elected) outweigh any possible good that B.O. might do as a Marxist-feminist chief executive officer of the U.S.
All I can say at this point is: thank you God for constitutional term limits.
UK government officials announced yesterday that by the year 2010, 5-year-old children will enter the first stages of a comprehensive, explicit sex education program, mandatory for schools nationwide, including faith schools.
The compulsory Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) program will begin in kindergarten where Schools Minister Jim Knight says children will learn about "their differences, their friendships, and how to manage their feelings." Knight insisted that the earliest curriculum will not be "sexually explicit," saying "we are not talking about five-year olds having sex."
The earliest stage of the program, for ages five through seven, will focus on relationships but also include lessons on body part names and animal reproduction. In the 8 to 11 age bracket, more biological aspects of sex are to be introduced, and after age 12, children will learn about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases.
The program was designed to combat the teen pregnancy rate in the UK, currently the highest in Europe. A 2005 survey estimated that one in five British girls have sex by the age of 14. Sex education lobbyists, like the Sex Education Forum, blamed the problem on inadequate sex education, and have called upon the government to institute mandatory "sex and relationships education" for years...
“When parents fail to educate their kids properly, the government has every right to step in,” said Gayla Coil, a Londoner and mother to two kids ages 13 and 10. “Me, I welcome the help.”
But Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern, insisted that undermining the authority and primary teaching role of parents can only exacerbate the problem.
"You're removing discretion from schools. You're undermining parents," he said, according to ABC Australia.
"And effectively what you're doing is taking parents out of the driving seat and putting the state in their place."
Proponents of the new program argue that teaching the biology of sex at a young age will prevent children from falling victim to the “playground rumor or the mixed messages from the media about sex," in the words of Jim Knight.
"Talking about body parts is often easier for children when they are younger as they are less self-conscious and less sensitive about their bodies," said Julie Bentley, chief executive of the FPA, formerly the Family Planning Association, in a BBC article.
Wells answers that such efforts to tear aside the veil are "all part of an exercise to break down children's inhibitions and natural sense of modesty.
"Most parents would be very concerned if they knew that their children were being given literature at school produced by an organisation that doesn't put sexual intimacy in a clear moral context and that fails to respect the role of parents."