Friday, October 27, 2006

Who do you think YOUR children belong to?

From the Association of California School Administrators:

Parents' choice proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. 'Family Choice' is therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the 'wants' of a single family rather than the 'needs' of society." -Crowell, Royal D, "How California Schools Denumb a Child's Mind" The Orange County Register Santa Ana, CA, Oct. 31, 1993, p.1-2

Ten Reasons to Vote for Ben Cardin, at least according to his supporters, Part 2

2."Cardin Voted Against the War in Iraq"

This is supposed to impress? For more than a decade we putzed around with Saddam Hussein, begging and pleading like ineffectual parents for him to please, please, please hold up his end of the peace agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Failing to go into Iraq despite more than a decade of broken agreement, as well as all the other "turn the other cheek" measures that our government took in response to Islamist attacks, served only embolden Islamic terrorists.

Some people (Saddam Hussein) are just plain evil. Treating them like misunderstood children only endangers our country. For a reminder, see my post "The Democratic Plan for North Korea" in the sidebar.

3."Cardin is a lifelong Marylander."

Is this a joke? Don't get me wrong, I don't want some carpetbagger (Hillary Clinton) elected to represent our state, as has happened in other states (New York, they deserve what they get); but really, that's not a reason to elect him as a senator. If that was a criterion, most of the inmates at ECI would qualify.

4."Cardin is a Mensch"

I don't know him personally, so maybe he is a "mensch". But so what? I know lots of people who are nice, but I wouldn't elect them for anything more important than dogcatcher. And besides, he's only a mensch to you if you're not an innocent baby who can't protect yourself. If that kid in the picture knew what Cardin would have allowed his mother to do to him, he wouldn't be laughing, he'd be screaming his head off in abject terror.

5."Cardin is an expert on Social Security. ,....Cardin has vigorously fought Republican attempts to privatize Social Security. "

Yeah. He thinks he knows better what ought to be done with your money than you do. He believes that you can't be trusted, so you should turn your dollars over to Washington DC, and let them handle it. 'We're from the government, and we're here to help.'

Naturally, this "social security expert" has failed to notice that if there we still had the 48 million people in the US that we've killed (aborted) since 1973 there would be no problem with Social Security, because we would have that many more people working and paying into it. But don't worry, Cardin has a plan. Each of us who survived our mother's pregnancy will have to pay more and more, and wait longer and longer to get it - if ever.

6."Cardin will help you spend less time in traffic"

Really? Can't tell it by this video of the Cardin vs Steele debate. Traffic and metro isn't a make-or-break issue for me, but it doesn't appear that Cardin has anything over Steele on this issue.

7."Cardin is a strong advocate for stem cell research"

Cardin believes that the government should be subsidizing embryonic stem cell research. He doesn't care that it hasn't shown any good results. He doesn't care that adult stem cells have shown a lot of promise, and that money going to the unpromising embryonic stem cell research diverts funds from research that actually COULD provide cures. He doesn't care about the fact that while the government will not fund this research, private enterprise can, and would -IF IT WAS WORTH PURSUING!

8."Cardin will help make healthcare more affordable"

Yawn. Doesn't every politician, of every political stripe, say this? And have we seen any real results? Cardin, like all politicians, wishes that healthcare was more affordable. But wishing won't make it so.

I can tell you what he will never do. He will never divert the $2.9 million Maryland taxpayer dollars that were used to fund abortions last year into real healthcare for the needy.

9."Cardin is a strong supporter of civil rights"

That's nice. It really is. This might make him a nice man, but it does not in any way differentiate him from a crowd of other people who would like to get elected. I mean, really, you gotta come up with something better than that. After all, have you ever heard a politician say that they are against civil rights?

10."Cardin is passionate about ethics"

I almost spit my coffee out when I read this one. Ethics? A man who is for the right to LITERALLY have a baby stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors so that his/her brains can be sucked out is going to run on ETHICS! You gotta be kidding me.

In summary, according to the Ben Cardin's supporters we should vote for him because:

he's a really nice baby-killing mensch who was too gutless to go to war against an evil dictator, but expects to be trusted with your money, is willing to talk the usual platitudes about healthcare and civil rights, got smacked-down by Michael Steele on the traffic issue in the metro area, and still has the gall to talk ethics despite being willing to kill babies in the name of convenience and pseudo-science. Oh yeah, and he's a lifelong Marylander.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Ten Reasons to Vote for Ben Cardin, at least according to his supporters, Part 1

Clicking around the local blogosphere today, I came upon the Jousting for Justice blog. This was a new blog to me, and interesting in that it is the first that I have come upon with a liberal slant. The main feature on the blog, today, is 10 Reasons to Vote for Ben Cardin. Being a proud Steele supporter, I decided to read these "10 reasons" to see if anything good could be gleaned from them. Was there? You decide.

Reason #1 to support Ben Cardin (according to his supporters):

"Cardin Supports a Woman's Right to Choose. For this important reason alone, Ben Cardin deserves your vote."

Really? Are you sure? Well, then, let's see what that "choice" is, shall we?

Just in case you can't read the diagram, here is what it says:

A. A speculum is inserted in the vagina, a tenaculum is clamped to the lip of the cervix and a cannula is inserted into the uterus.

B.The amniotic fluid, placenta, and fetus are suctioned through the cannula into a collection jar. The fetus and placenta are torn apart in the process.

C.The uterine cavity is scraped with a curette to determine whether any significant amount of tissue remains.

D.The contents of the collection jar are examined that all fetal parts and an adequate amount of tissue commensurate with estimated gestational age are present.

This is the procedure for which his supporters say that you should vote for Ben Cardin. This is the most common abortion procedure performed in the United States today.

Ben Cardin also voted AGAINST the partial-birth abortion ban. He wanted every woman, at ANY TIME DURING PREGNANCY, to have the right to choose this:

1.Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.

2.The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3.The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.

4.The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...

5.The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

And for this reason alone we should vote for Ben Cardin, according to his supporters.

Part 2, tomorrow.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Hospital Burns Aborted Babies in Waste Incinerator

Found this article earlier today. Apparently, some women are "horrified and disgusted" that the babies they chose to kill are being burnt in the same place as the trash, so that the hospital can save $30 on the crematorium.

Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator
By JAMES SLACK Last updated at 22:00pm on 23rd October 2006

One of the country's leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged.

Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.

Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

The revelation sparked anger and distress among church leaders and pro-life groups, as well as women whose pregnancies were terminated at the hospital.

Addenbrooke's adopts a different policy for unborn babies which are miscarried before 24 weeks.

They are either cremated at a crematorium , buried at a cemetery, or passed to the parents if they wish to make their own arrangements.

Dr Anthony Russell, Bishop of Ely, said: "I am sorry to know this is the practice currently being adopted by the hospital. I recognise there is a wide range of responses to this issue, but believe the disposal of foetuses should be undertaken reverently and with dignity."

Pro-life groups claim that, while not illegal, it goes against the spirit of guidelines issued by the Royal College of Nursing.

The RCN's guide, Sensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains, says disposal alongside clinical waste is 'completely unacceptable'.

It adds: 'It is acknowledged that sometimes parents don't recognise their loss at the time, but may return months or even years later to enquire about the disposal arrangements.

'Therefore, it is important to respect the wishes of parents who may not want to be involved, but to ensure also that sensitive and dignified disposal is carried out.'

Lisa Wilson, of the ProLife Alliance, said: "What absolute horror. Has our society lost even a minimum concept of the humanity of the unborn child and the respect due to these tiny victims of our ruthless legislation?"

Michaela Aston, spokesman for pro-life charity Life, said: "The fact they are now disposing of human remains like they would any other waste product shows what society and this hospital has come to.

"It is just so disgusting. What has happened to the dignity of the human being? It reflects increasingly certain people in society's attitudes to the unborn child just flushing them away, or burning them like any other waste. How can we let this happen in a civilised society?"

One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.

She said: "I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish."

Hospital managers said they had to take the decision after 'significant increases' in the fees charged by Cambridge City Crematorium, where they were previously buried or cremated.

The hospital, under pressure along with the rest of the NHS to make millions of pounds of savings, said it was trying to be 'careful with the use of limited resources'.

In June, it emerged cash-strapped health chiefs had to cut a total of £28 million from NHS spending in Cambridgeshire.

The so-called 'turnaround plan', aimed at clawing back a forecast debt of £45.9 million, forced Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trusts take a scalpel to demand savings of £15m from Addenbrooke's. This is despite the hospital having a surplus of £3.5m at the end of the last financial year.

The reduction was to be achieved 'by treating fewer people and working more efficiently'. An Addenbrooke's spokesman said aborted foetuses used to be cremated free at Cambridge Crematorium but a price rise to £18.50 in 2005 forced the hospital to use its own incinerator.

She said rubbish was not disposed of at the same time as foetal tissue and the incinerator was booked in advance.

A white sheet is placed over the front of the furnace and the process is witnessed by two members of staff working in bereavement care.

In a statement, the hospital added: 'The arrangements Addenbrooke's has in place to dispose of unwanted foetal tissue comply with the recommendations of the Retained Organs Commission (ROC).

'Following the termination of unwanted pregnancy, foetal tissue is disposed of within the hospital incinerator in a sensitive and respectful manner.

'The incinerator is cleared of all other material, and no other waste is dealt with at the same time as the foetal tissue.

'The process is organised and witnessed by two members of staff who are specialists in bereavement care.

'Until recently the hospital used the services of Cambridge Crematorium, but due to significant rises in the cost we are charged, this option is no longer open to us.

'This comes at a time when we have to be careful with the use of limited resources, and we have had to consider other options which comply with the ROC guidance.

'Patients undergoing termination of unwanted pregnancy are informed that disposal will be within the hospital. If patients request additional information, they are put in touch with a member of the bereavement team who meets the patient and discusses in detail the arrangements.'

'We hope to have further discussions with the crematorium and the City Council to consider affordable alternatives.'

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Young Rap Artist Delivers Powerful Message

Can I live by Nick Cannon

Monday, October 16, 2006

You Have to Read This

I found this on Life News this morning. You just have to read it. If this doesn't move you, then call the paramedics - you must be dead. After you read it, check out the information at Pink

"I Had an Abortion" Campaign Ignores Women Damaged by Abortions

by Eve Sanchez Silver
October 13, 2006 Note: Eve Sanchez Silver is a former analyst for the Susan G. Komen foundation who resigned because the organization donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood and refused to acknowledge the abortion-breast cancer link. You can find more information at

I am writing in response to Ms. Magazine's "I Am Glad I Had An Abortion" campaign, and the magazine editors insistence that the opposite of "I am Glad I Had An Abortion" is NOT "I Regret my Abortion" but rather "I Regret my Birth."

I regret that 10 of my births were born dead due to miscarriage. I regret that I carried each child further than the one before, only to find that my cervix, badly damaged during two abortions, could not now contain my babies.

I regret that as I sat helplessly by, my elastic amniotic sacks leaked through my bird-pecked, damaged cervix, and then hour-glassed slowly filling with fluid; I regret the sudden gush of water flowing out of me ... and singing to my babies as they died.

I regret birthing each dead child from high up within my womb, farther up and in, away, far away from the exit; and I regret hours and days of pushing, pushing, pushing a lifeless baby out. I regret the catatonic state I entered. I regret every internal exam, the fingers telling me that the baby was not low enough. I regret the body bags that gushed out and flooded the surgery. The bags they used to get me to the ambulances. I regret the blood I lost, the fluids, the mess, the chattering teeth, the horror and the pain.

I regret the knowledge that I myself had begun this cascade of mourning.

I regret the fear in my only son's eyes, and the knowledge that grew in his face. The calm but desperate assurance he felt that it would happen again and again and again. I regret that even now. Even now, I hear my son crying for his siblings in my ears.

I regret the sudden entry to transition and the painful hours when birth and death worked me over side by side.

I regret telling people to leave me to do this alone when I had become an expert at losing life and I regret the ridiculous lengths I went to: the staying in bed for months, the stitching the cervix shut, the transitional pain of labor while the stitches strained against my harsh, screaming voice.

I regret that 60 out of SIXTY studies show that even one abortion greatly increases the risk of extreme, early pre-term births. I regret that the truth is hidden. I regret my two time abortion-breast cancer-linked breast cancers, they took my breasts and left me less than whole for oh, so long.

I regret that women are not hearing the truth and magazines like yours are lying to them, telling them there is nothing better than Aborting the American Way. I regret the genocide of minorities, the misinformation swallowed by the gullible and the jubilant. I regret what they will face...

I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth, I regret my birth.

I am grateful to God for my son and the daughter of my heart. but believe me: I regret my birth.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

That Really IS It!

We have all been subjected to the el crapola about the desperate need of the American economy for the labor provided (cheaply, of course) by illegal immigrants. And very many of us have been subjected to BS pious sermons from our pastors about how we need to be "open and welcoming" to the invaders pouring across our borders, because they are poor and Jesus would want us to help them (it never occurs to them that Jesus might want them to get off their butts and create an economic base of their own, in their own country). And we've even been subjected to crap from both political parties about the need for "some kind of amnesty" for the workers already here, so that they can become citizens.

Like many Americans I have been tired of it for a long time already. Today, however, I saw an article that really is the last straw. Apparently our government, oh so welcoming to the invasion force from the south, has decided to deport a Chinese woman who, having managed to escape a Communist regime and come to America, got married to an American citizen and had two children. By all appearances living a productive life, this woman has sought asylum from the REPRESSIVE, COMMUNIST, BABY KILLING, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING government - but we are trying to deport her.

All she wants is to stay with her husband and children, and not to be forced to go back to an evil, communist regime that will attempt to force abortions and/or sterilizations on her. All she wants is to not be forced to choose between going back without her husband and children to a country that will almost surely punish her in some way and going back with her husband and children - so that they can all be punished together.

Despite protests from the American people, our government has done nothing substantive to halt, or even slow, the continued violations of our Mexican border. If that same government actually deports this woman to China, it is beneath contempt.

Chinese Family Fights Deportation Over Worries of Forced Abortions.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006


Pope Benedict XVI is rumored to have signed a universal indult which will allow any priest to introduce the Latin/Tridentine mass at his parish, unless expressly forbidden to do so by his bishop, in writing.

Pope set to bring back Latin Mass that divided the Church
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.

Use of the Tridentine Mass, parts of which date from the time of St Gregory in the 6th century and which takes its name from the 16th-century Council of Trent, was restricted by most bishops after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

This led to the introduction of the new Mass in the vernacular to make it more accessible to contemporary audiences. By bringing back Mass in Latin, Pope Benedict is signalling that his sympathies lie with conservatives in the Catholic Church.

One of the most celebrated rebels against its suppression was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with Rome in 1988 over this and other reforms. He was excommunicated after he consecrated four bishops, one of them British, without permission from the Pope.

Some Lefebvrists, including those in Brazil, have already been readmitted. An indult permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass could help to bring remaining Lefebvrists and many other traditional Catholics back to the fold.

The priests of England and Wales are among those sometimes given permission to celebrate the Old Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Tridentine Masses are said regularly at the Oratory and St James’s Spanish Place in London, but are harder to find outside the capital.

The new indult would permit any priest to introduce the Tridentine Mass to his church, anywhere in the world, unless his bishop has explicitly forbidden it in writing.

Catholic bloggers have been anticipating the indult for months. The Cornell Society blog says that Father Martin Edwards, a London priest, was told by Cardinal Joseph Zen, of Hong Kong, that the indult had been signed. Cardinal Zen is alleged to have had this information from the Pope himself in a private meeting.

“There have been false alarms before, not least because within the Curia there are those genuinely well-disposed to the Latin Mass, those who are against and those who like to move groups within the Church like pieces on a chessboard,” a source told The Times. “But hopes have been raised with the new pope. It would fit with what he has said and done on the subject. He celebrated in the old rite, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.”

The 1962 Missal issued by Pope John XXIII was the last of several revisions of the 1570 Missal of Pius V. In a lecture in 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger said that it would be “fatal” for the Missal to be “placed in a deep-freeze, left like a national park, a park protected for the sake of a certain kind of people, for whom one leaves available these relics of the past”.

Daphne McLeod, chairman of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, a UK umbrella group that campaigns for the restoration of traditional orthodoxy, said: “A lot of young priests are teaching themselves the Tridentine Mass because it is so beautiful and has prayers that go back to the Early Church.”

# The Tridentine Mass is celebrated entirely in Latin, except for a few words and phrases in Greek and Hebrew. There are long periods of silence and the priest has his back to the congregation

# In 1570, Pope St Pius V said that priests could use the Tridentine rite forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty”

# Since the Second Vatican Council, the Tridentine Mass has been almost entirely superseded by the Mass of Pope Paul VI

# Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who took the lead in opposing the reforms, continued to celebrate the old Mass at his seminary in Ecône, Switzerland, and formed a dissident group. He was excommunicated in 1988

# The advantages of the Mass, according to the faithful, are in its uniformity and the fact that movements and gestures are prescribed, so that there is no room for “personalisation”

This indult, if it exists, has not yet been circulated. But, if it's true, it would be a major step towards reunion with those traditionalists who have stepped out of the Church. Many within the Church have strong sympathies towards traditionalists, especially in matters of moral doctrine; however, they also see those same traditionalists as having a protestant-like problem with rebellion against authority and obediance. In a world that is nearly rabid with desire to kill God and the Church, bringing the "uber traditionalists" back into the Church could prove to be the next wave of revitalization and renewal that many feel the Church desperately needs in the wake of liberal "priests of the 1960s" who have managed to satisfy the spiritual needs of almost no one.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

The Democratic Plan for North Korea

This ad was designed by David Zucker, of "Scary Movie" fame. He is a former democrat, who turned Republican when he realized just how little attention the Dems pay to national security. He made this video for the GOP to be used in the 2006 campaign, but some GOP weenies decided that it was "too hot". It's a serious subject, well leavened with a little humor. Enjoy.

The David Zucker Albright Ad

Monday, October 09, 2006

Unprecedented Audacity

In a move of nearly unprecedented audacity, the Mexican government may appeal to the United Nations to stop the 700 mile fence planned for the American-Mexican border. If this were TV, it would be a comedy - but it's for real! I just can't decide which part of this is more hysterical. Could it be the absolute arrogance of the Mexican government, to think they have a right to so much as an opinion on American policy? Or perhaps it's the idea that the UN gets any say in this issue? No, I got it. The funniest thing, is that they seem to think that the UN could actually get something done! Now THAT is funny!

I would have copied the full story for you, but I was laughing too hard at that regime of idiots down south. You can get the full story here.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

The Small Problem of Suburban Sprawl

Continuing the theme of population, here is a great article by the Population Research Institute, about the effects of: population, land use, infrastructure planning, and suburban sprawl. Take a minute and read it. It is definitely a different perspective than what you will get from the sometimes hysterical national media.

The Small Problem of Suburban Sprawl

By Joseph A. D'Agostino

As America's population nears 300 million, she faces the small problem ofsuburban sprawl. Why small? Because contrary to the impression made by the mainstream media, environmentalists, and suburban home-owners opposed to letting others become suburban home-owners, sprawl is consuming a tiny fraction of America's land. The hysterically environmentalist Sierra Club estimated a few years ago that developers build on an additional 400,000 acres of land annually (they since inflated their estimate since it apparently wasn't scary enough). That is 0.02% of America's land area. Thus, over the next 50 years, sprawl will consume an additional 1% of American land. This is less than a crisis.

Right now, only 4.7% of America is built up (20% is farmland). Many forget that as more and more people move to growing metropolitan areas, America's small towns and rural areas continue to empty out, freeing up land in some areas just as land is developed in others.

In addition, sprawl is becoming more efficient. Between 1950 and 1990, metropolitan land use increased by 66% while the number of people living in metro areas grew by 89%. Americans are consuming less and less space per capita. And since 1990, many states and localities have imposed "smart growth" policies that direct developers to redevelop land rather than build on virgin soil and employ more efficient building patterns. In addition, the rise in real estate prices of recent years has prompted people to make better use of this resource.

Other techniques have been and will continue to be employed in mitigating the effects of sprawl. More people commute suburb-to-suburb instead of into choked cities. The Internet and e-mail enable a growing number of people to avoid commuting at all, and even to avoid sprawl: They continue to work for city-based companies while living in the countryside, keeping in touch via phone, fax, e-mail, Internet, and occasional package shipping as America's free market has reduced the costs of each one to easily
affordable levels.

Most of those reading this who reside in metropolitan areas will think something along these lines: "How can this be true? I have seen a huge amount of development in my area in the past few years. The roads are much more congested than they were ten years ago. My friends in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Washington say the same about their areas."

Such perceived suburban sprawl is then used as an argument to push the American subset of the overpopulation myth, the idea that our country has become too crowded. Yet the fact remains that sprawl is taking up only a tiny proportion of our land. According to the United Nations, the United States' population density is 31 people per square kilometer, well below the world average of 48 and far below those of comparable nations in Western Europe, almost all of whose population densities are more than triple our own. The UN projects that our population density will reach a still-small 41 by 2050. In contrast, right now, Britain's is 246 and France's is 110.

So any problems from suburban sprawl cannot result from too many people overall or too much land development overall. Sprawl is simply too small a problem for that. In fact, sprawl is too small a problem to afflict the United States overall: Since such a small amount of land, almost always next to previously developed land (developers rarely start building in virgin forest miles from any city), is affected, sprawl is not directly affecting the USA as a whole. Whether population growth, separate from sprawl, is adversely affecting America is a topic for a future article.

Yet poorly planned sprawl can adversely affect the areas in which it occurs. Gripped by environmentalist-based anti-car fervor, states and localities slackened their road-building decades ago-and after all, roads without tolls don't generate income for local governments whereas businesses and homes can be taxed. Both mass transit rail and bus systems lose money, making them another drag on localities' finances. It is this failure to plan roads and mass transit that has most obviously degraded the quality of life in areas with substantial amounts of sprawl. (Note: Pollution emitted by cars has dropped dramatically over the past 40 years, making the increasing number of vehicles on the road an ever-shrinking environmental concern.)

It's true, too, that many schools are overcrowded. This again is a failure of local governments to plan for growth that everyone knew was coming. With more people come more taxpayers to pay for more schools and roads; it is not as if population growth didn't increase the tax base. If much of population growth is due to illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes and commit a disproportionately large amount of crime, well, that's not a problem with the size of population per se, but with the kind of people who live in an area-and is due to the deliberate failure of the federal government to secure America's borders.

And what of the advantages of sprawl? Sprawl allows more American families to live in detached homes with yards. It allows people to move out of unsafe cities with incompetent governments and schools to safe areas with better-run institutions. These are major advantages. A longer commute is a trade-off. And those who wish can still live in the city, a legitimate freedom to choose.

You can find the original here.

300 Million and Counting, Thank God!

So this is the month that the US is expected to reach a population of 300 million individuals. It sounds like an awful lot, doesn't it? And naturally, we are vaguely remembering all those indoctrinations, I mean lessons, that we heard in public school about overpopulation, famine, hunger, global warming, and the end of life as we know it. Well, before we start getting all worried that the world is going to come to an end because there are far too many people, take a look at this.

What is seen is that while the US is growing, almost exclusively through immigration, most of the rest of the developed world is severely declining in population. The results of this population implosion are not yet fully known, but we can make a few guesses.

In another generation or two, the great European cultures which many of us draw upon for ancestry, will no longer exist. History will be forgotten as only "future progress" is deemed worthy of thought. Without strong family units to give daily life meaning, people will turn almost exclusively to commercial interests and entertainments. As the current population ages, the elderly and infirm will come to be seen as liabilities. Instead of being seen as a necessary part of family life and childrearing, they will now be shunted off to "old folks homes" - except when they are encouraged to euthanize themselves. Economies will struggle to find ways to make do without enough workers. Governments will suffer declining tax revenues, leading to social welfare programs being axed and taxes heavily increased. Immigration, mostly from nearby Islamic countries, will be necessary to keep a minimal number of workers. With a resident culture that has mostly abandoned it's own Christian heritage, it is unlikely that the Muslim influx will be influenced to assimilate. This will lead to the most peaceful spread of Islam in human history.

So, the next time someone in the United States complains about supposed overpopulation, remind them that every baby born is one who will be contributing to: social security, the economy, culture, and care of the elderly and infirm. If they're still not satisfied, invite them to move to Europe.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Pitiful Thinking

I first saw this article linked, with another, on the Justice for All? blog. It is a good demonstration of both the frightening evil that honest pro-abortion types will admit to, as well as to the pitiful thought processes of a great number of the supposedly educated in our society. The first part of the article deals with the origin of our moral code (according to the author) . While it describes a particular world-view, it does nothing to actually support that view; rather, the author just makes one assertion after another, hoping that the reader will question nothing.

I am responding here to the latter part of the article, in which the author attempts, through use of an analogy, to justify abortion:

Legal abortions, as well as armed madmen, are both, perhaps the unintended, but entirely consistent consequences of our rights-based democratic moral gestalt. Let me use a variation of an analogy used by Judith Jarvis Thompson to make the point. If it is a hot day and I leave the front door of my house open to cool it off, and I then go upstairs to take a nap, if an intruder has moved in during my nap I have the right to evict him even though I was a fool for leaving open my door. After all it is my house and no one has the right to move into my house without my explicit permission to serve as a contract. In other words, if I have not entered into some variety of a contract with this interloper he has no claim against my right to my property and my liberty. Out he goes. And, if he will not leave of his own volition, I can call the police to evict him. And even if he dies during that eviction his unfortunate death is not my moral responsibility.

Now, imagine again, I leave my door open and this time someone moves in during my nap, and he has attached himself to my piano with an odd variety of explosive collar that cannot be removed for nine months. If I, or anyone else, remove the collar prior to nine months in order to evict him the collar will explode, blow his head off, and make a terrible mess of my living room in the process. So, do I have the right to evict him? To do so will certainly mean he will be killed, and my home will be damaged, even if only slightly. This is analogous to an abortion. The fetus must die and the mother may be harmed. If only I had not listened to my natural inclination to be cooled off when I was so hot none of this would have happened. If only I had not been such a fool. But I did, and I was, and now he is attached to my piano. Can I evict him now? Well the answer is certainly yes, based on my natural rights: yes I can evict him even though he will die. Too bad, so sad, oh what a mess. His death and my suffering are both unintended consequences of my enforcement of my inalienable rights to liberty and property. My intent was never to kill him, but merely to have my home back to myself.

Those who would argue my stupidity would in some fashion require I leave him attached to my piano for nine months, would be stuck with the position of saying stupid people lose their rights to liberty and property. Remember, I did not ask him to come in; so I have no contractual obligation to him once he has. But no one, who embraces a rights-based moral gestalt, would accept that. If my car is stolen because I leave it running while I amble into the convenience store, that remains grand theft auto despite the fact that I am simultaneously a grand fool.

A grand fool indeed. This is a very logical sounding arguement, if you don't look at it too carefully. Few would argue with the rights of a property owner to protect their property by evicting a trespasser, even if it cost the trespasser his/her life. But a few simple comparisons show this to be a false analogy.

First, is the very action that gets the intruder into the home. Yes, an intruder entering uninvited does not belong. However, a baby is neither an intruder nor uninvited. In fact, the baby does not get into the womb except by the EXPLICIT ACT of the man and woman. The woman who finds herself pregnant did not simply wake up from a nap with a baby in her womb. She participated in the act of creating that baby in her womb! Therefore, she is responsbile for the innocent human life that she has created.

Which brings us to the second point of comparison, the moral character of the action that brought the intruder into the home. Clearly, a person entering uninvited is in the moral wrong. They have actively violated someone else's space. However, this is not true of the child in the woman. The child's presence is not a violation, but just the opposite. The woman has created the child in the womb; therefore, the child is doing exactly what the woman's act intended. This is why the act of abortion requires so much force, because the woman's womb will fight to stay closed and hold her baby within. This is why our language calls a uterus that is medically incapable of holding a baby "incompetent".

The final comparison is more subtly wrong, but dangerous nonetheless. That is the comparison of our bodies to personal property. This is where the rubber really hits the road. You will either embrace a view of the human, as being made "in the image and likeness of God", or you will view the human as mere matter. If we are made in the image and likeness of God, then we can't even begin to make comparisons of our bodies to a mere house. If, as in the author's analogy, we are mere matter, we had better be very aware of the possibility that our matter can be viewed as property. And once something can be seen as property, then it can be bought and sold, like any other property. Human history is full of examples of what happens next.

If go and read the whole article, you will find the most ironic ending to that article. After spending a number of paragraphs attempting to assert that we can invent morality for ourselves, and then further attempting to justify abortion, the author then complains that he does not want his tax dollars going to fund the woman's "debauchery". Apparently it's ok to kill the baby, just pay for it yourself.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Judge Not

I think if I hear one more person say “judge not”, I am going to puke. We have taken a basic biblical maxim, having to do with not judging people’s hearts and the disposition of their souls, and turned it into the one and only moral absolute. We have lost the ability, or perhaps just the willingness, to separate the person as a whole, from the action.

Judging actions is not only allowable, but necessary. If we can’t judge actions, we have no basis for limits in a civil and just society. We are then truly an “anything goes” people. No action can be disallowed, as we will fear being “judgemental”. We are so very close to this already. The most heinous things happen, and we feel we cannot call evil by it’s name, because we will be labeled “judgemental”. Even as the nation grieves for the Amish families in Pennsylvania, who have lost their little girls (and may lose still more) to the actions of a man who made a decision to storm their school and kill them – we are being reminded “not to judge”.

Well, I’m judging. What that man did was evil, pure and simple. Tying small girls together and shooting them is evil. I don’t know the state of that man’s heart and mind. I don’t know for sure whether his soul rests in the bosom of God, or burns in the fiery pits of hell. But I know that what he did was EVIL. I can be fairly sure that whatever went through his head before he stormed that school is unlikely to have been fear of being judged.

So as we go about our days, feeling oh-so-righteous in our refusal to judge, we'd better think about what that says about us. And about how much it impairs our ability to have a society in which people limit their behaviour to those things that are decent - because they will have no fear of being judged.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

School Shootings, A Different Perspective

The 06-07 school year is hardly begun, and already the news is full of school shootings around the country. There are also numerous more reports of lesser, though none-the-less frightening, incidents of non-lethal violence. As always, people are asking what can be done. Is the answer more police on campus, more metal detectors, more conflict resolution training? And Why, oh why, are our kids so violent? Is it too many violent video games, songs, movies, television shows? These are questions and cries being heard around the nation.

Here is one possible answer:

On April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, two students in Columbine High School in Greater Denver, shot and killed 12 other students and one faculty member. The two boys then committed suicide. Two years later, similiar crimes had occurred in a number of other public high schools. The nation and its media keep asking, "How can this happen?"

The real question is, "Why is this a surprise?" Two years after the Planned Parenthood v Casey rationale for killing unborn babies, Mother Teresa of Calcutta addressed the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. She asked, "If we accept that the mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

This is a very real question. If the highest court in the wealthiest nation on the planet tells mothers they can kill their own babies based on a radical subjectivism of freedom from any external restraints, how does that nation - with any authority - tell its teenagers that it is morally wrong for them to kill one another?

The answer is clear. The nation cannot and it does not teach young people that it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies or each other. It does not teach that it is morally wrong to kill oneself. The Supreme Court has forbidden the teaching of religion-based morality. Public school teachers can only appeal to a secular sense of decency that has not yet been totally erased, but such efforts are relatively fruitless in the face of severe temptation. We all need moral absolutes both for our own good and for the good of society, but the philosophy of total subjectivism grips America and its public education system.

The various connections between contraception and abortion have contributed to a radical subjectivism that was enshrined in the Supreme Court's "mystery clause" defense of abortion. The fruit of such wanton abandonment of respect for God's order of creation is clearly demonstrated in Columbine and its subsequent copycat killings.

Excerpted from From Contraception to Columbine by John Kippley, (if you would like a copy of this pamphlet mailed to you, free of charge, send an email to: be sure to include the address to which you would like it mailed)

John Kippley says it nicely. I'll say it plainly. If we as a society continue to ignore the slaughter of a generation of children, then DON'T BE SURPRISED that they are turning on us and on each other.

We have ignored the 48,000,000 killed since 1973. We are ignoring the 4000 that were murdered TODAY. And we will ignore the 4000 that will be slaughtered TOMORROW AND EVERYDAY, until we end it.

Why shouldn't they be violent and angry?

We are merely reaping what we have sown.