I've No "Core Canadian Values".

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Bieber Justin Trudeau, being pro-life, I am not in-line with the Canadian government nor who Canadians are as a society.

Just what I need.....another reason not to visit Canada.

Neil Gorsuch Isn't Pro-Life

In the following Youtube video, we see Trump's SCOTUS nominee, Neil Gorsuch state that the fetus is not a person.

Gorsuch also maintains that Roe vs Wade is settled law.

I do not support Gorsuch's nomination. If this is the best Trump has to offer the pro life community, then we are in bad shape.

After P.O.T.U.S.H.C. is Impeached.

Now that both Trump and Clinton have told us their pick for V.P., I have to say that while neither the junior Democratic senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine nor Indiana governor Mike Pence would be my first choice as POTUS, from the little I know of the two, either would be better than the choices we now have.

I've said on on more than one occasion, that Clinton will beat Trump in November only because more Americans hate and despise Trump than hate and despise Clinton. I've modified an earlier belief that, after the election, and before her term is complete, Hillary Clinton will be impeached. I'm no longer confident in that prediction, but if she is removed from office, I suppose Tim Kaine might be an improvement over Hillary.

I do have reservations about Kaine, however. He has been described as a devout Catholic, but one that has ".........taken the position, which is quite common among Catholics," to not let his Catholic beliefs stand in the way of being a loyal Democrat.

Kaine claims to be anti-abortion, but, never the less supports Roe v. Wade and is basically, pro-choice.

Kaine said in 2012, "I have a moral position against the death penalty, but I took an oath of office to uphold it. Following an oath of office is also a moral obligation". As Virginia's governor, he oversaw 11 state executions.

Although he once felt otherwise, he now supports gay adoption and same sex marriage.

He favors allowing women to become Catholic priests.

Some Progressive Democrats maintain that "Kaine is not as liberal as some Democrats would prefer on a range of issues, most prominently trade and abortion rights". He may not be as liberal on abortion as some Democrats, but Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating on their scorecard. If a PP score of 100% isn't high enough for these pro-abortion savages, than Heaven help us.

A few paragraphs back, I wrote that Tim Kaine might be an improvement over Hillary. Now, that I've reread this blog post, I'm not at all sure of that.

Banned and Enjoying It

There was a time when I was a frequent visitor to Mark Shea's blog, Catholic and Enjoying It. However, after I was banned from commenting on his blog in August 2015, I stopped reading it. Why should I continue to read someone who will not allow me to leave a comment?

Today, after many months away from his blog, I thought I'd check it out. That is when I discovered a strange post, "Michael Brendan Dougherty Advocates Final Act of Nihilist Irresponsibility." In the post, Shea is is critical of writer Michael Brendan Dougherty's decision to abstain from voting in the 2016 election for POTUS. Like me, Dougherty cannot stomach the thought of voting for either Clinton or Trump and Dougherty will not participate.

Shea maintains that "..........conservatives, above all, have a moral obligation to do all in their power to defeat Trump since it is they and they alone–the Party of Personal Responsibility and the Right Wing Noise Machine–who bred and catechized the base of morons, racists, and misogynists who made him a power in the lend. Sitting this out is just the final act of nihilist irresponsibility by the party that bears 100% of the weight of responsibility for paving the way for this guy".

I don't agree that it is conservatives "alone" who are responsible for the rise of Trump and I resent being labeled with "morons, racists, and misogynists"; as a conservative, I don't fit in with that category.

Secondly, this is the same issue - more or less - that got me banned from Shea's blog to begin with. Shea has made it clear  that he will not vote for a candidate who asks him to support grave and intrinsic evil. I was banned from commenting for saying Shea only votes for perfect candidates.

It's clear that Shea will not vote for Trump. At the risk of being accused of putting words into his mouth, I'm pretty sure he won't cast a vote for Clinton either. So where does that leave Shea?

I can't support Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson because of his pro choice stand on abortion. I don't know if that's a deal breaker for Shea as well, but I think it would be. So then, what other choices does one have? If you're voting your conscience and can't support the Democrat, Republican or Libertarian candidates, who is left to vote for?

American Independent Party candidate, Tom Hoefling might lose Shea's vote over his views on guns.

The American Freedom Party candidate, Robert Whitaker's racism would not be a good fit for Shea either.

The Georgia Right to Life PAC Endorses Darrell Castle of the Constituion Party of the U.S. for President, but is he on the ballot in Washington State where Shea lives, and where does Castle stand on other issues?

Going to politics1.com, one is given a list of the countless number of  POTUSWANNABES......Right Wing, Left Wing and all points in between. Only two candidates on the list have a snowball's chance in Cebu of being elected.

Basically, your choices are Clinton, Trump, some unelectable candidate, or not voting. Considering our choices, I don't see how not voting can be the "final act of nihilist irresponsibility", as Shea puts it.

I haven't been keeping up with Shea's blog enough to know if he has publicly endorsed anyone. I guess I'll never know. I'd ask him, but I'm banned from leaving a comment on his blog.

Bernie Sanders at the Vatican

It is not without a bit of irony that Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders was the only U.S. Presidential candidate invited to speak at a conference at the Vatican,hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to mark the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Centesimus Annus.

Sanders' "reflection" can be found on his website.

Having read Sanders' speech, I have to say that there is little, if anything, that I can disagree with Sanders on in his speech. There are areas where his worldview actually aligns (in a limited way) with Catholic teaching.

Sanders says:

"In the year 2016, the top one percent of the people on this planet own more wealth than the bottom 99 percent, while the wealthiest 60 people – 60 people – own more than the bottom half – 3 1/2 billion people. At a time when so few have so much, and so many have so little, we must reject the foundations of this contemporary economy as immoral and unsustainable."

Sanders misses the mark in many areas, however. The encyclical, which the conference was commemorating, was itself, a commemoration of Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII praises private property and condemns Socialism.

There may be ideas in Centesimus Annus which are appealing to Bernie Sanders, but he ignores one in particular:

"Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no genuine solution of the 'social question' apart from the Gospel, and that the 'new things' can find in the Gospel the context for their correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on them."

I don't have the answer as to how we eliminate poverty and income inequality. I'm sure it can't be achieved without some governmental intervention. The question is how much governmental intervention is necessary and at what point does governmental intervention make the situation worse?

I'm certainly willing to give Sanders' economic ideas a look-see, but I could never support him outright due his views on abortion and same sex so-called "marriage".

The Press Misunderstands Pope Francis. What Else is New?

Recently, Bernie Sanders announced that he had received an invitation to speak at a small, invitation-only scholarly conference at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
Of course, that's not exactly right. Sanders has led us to believe that he would be speaking to Pope Francis. He was neither invited by the Pope, nor will the Pope be attending the conference. It is highly unlikely that the two will even be in the same room together - much less have a conversation.

Now, we have a number of opinion writers telling us just how much Mr Sanders and Pope Francis have in common.

Kathleen Parker believes the two might share a similar worldview, and Brent Budowsky maintains that Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis Stand Together on quite a few things.

First, let me state the obvious.Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis are worlds apart on the issues of abortion and same sex so-called "marriage". There's no point in even going there.

Folks like Parker and Budowsky want to put the two together because both speak out on matters of economic equality, social justice, combating poverty and human rights. Earth to Parker and Budowsky: Sanders and the Pope may agree on the problems, but not the solutions.

Socialism is not the only system fighting inequality and poverty.

According to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia Socialism is defined as -

"A system of social and economic organization that would substitute state monopoly for private ownership of the sources of production and means of distribution, and would concentrate under the control of the secular governing authority the chief activities of human life. 

The term is often used vaguely to indicate any increase of collective control over individual action, or even any revolt of the dispossessed against the rule of the possessing classes. But these are undue extensions of the term, leading to much confusion of thought. State control and even state ownership are not necessarily Socialism: they become so only when they result in or tend towards the prohibition of private ownership not only of "natural monopolies", but also of all the sources of wealth. Nor is mere revolt against economic inequality Socialism: it may be Anarchism (see ANARCHY); it may be mere Utopianism (see COMMUNISM); it may be a just resistance to oppression. Nor is it merely a proposal to make such economic changes in the social structure as would banish poverty. Socialism is this (see COLLECTIVISM) and much more. 

It is also a philosophy of social life and action, regarding all human activities from a definite economic standpoint. Moreover modern Socialism is not a mere arbitrary exercise at state-building, but a deliberate attempt to relieve, on explicit principles, the existing social conditions, which are regarded as intolerable. 

The great inequalities of human life and opportunity, produced by the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community, have been the cause and still are the stimulus of what is called the Socialistic movement. But, in order to understand fully what Socialism is and what it implies, it is necessary first to glance at the history of the movement, then to examine its philosophical and religious tendencies, and finally to consider how far these may be, and actually have proved to be, incompatible with Christian thought and life."


True Socialism calls for the abolition of private property, and is in opposition to the teachings of the Church.

Every Pope since Pius IX has written and spoken out against the evils of Socialism.

Sanders isn't a religious Holy Man because he is against oppression, poverty and inequality. We are all against those things. It's the methods and solutions Sanders presents that are questionable. More government control is not the answer and I don't believe I've heard Pope Francis call for that.

Jimmy Carter - The Perfect Protestant.

While promoting his latest memoir, A Wasted Life: Reflections of an Old Coot, former worst U.S. President, Jimmy Carter told Huffington Post that Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Carter goes on to say that he has no verse in scripture to back up his claim, even admitting that it is just his own personal belief.

Overlooked in Carter's asinine same sex "marriage" comments is Carter's statement on Jesus and abortion.

Carter said that Jesus did not approve of abortion, except in the case of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. Carter and the interviewer just slid past that little tidbit. He didn't say so, but I suspect Carter would have a difficult time finding verse in scripture to support his claim that Jesus would approve of the "rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother" argument so often put forward by Progressive Christians.

Jimmy Carter's foul pronouncements are a perfect example how Protestantism has corrupted the teaching of Jesus Christ. At one time, Protestants would pick and choose random scriptural texts to support whatever wild beliefs their heretical hearts desired. Now, they don't even do that. It's all about their own personal opinions.

Progressives Attempt to Divide Conservatives With Laudato Si.

There is no lack of "news" headlines on the Internet attempting to spin the Pope's "climate change" encyclical into a political groove.

From USA Today - Pope's climate change statement a challenge for Republicans.

Desmogblog writes - Republican Presidential Candidates Attack Pope’s Climate Change Encyclical

And from Huffington Post - Right Wing Steamed Over Pope's Climate Change Encyclical

Hoping to divide Republicans, Democrats are overjoyed that GOP Catholics more convinced about climate change than other Republicans.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to say, "We really must listen to his Holiness as we go forward.".

Are the Democrats ready to embrace Pope Francis and his encyclical, Laudato si completely?

Is Pelosi, fellow CINO John Kerry, and Democrat Presidential favorite, Hillary Clinton ready to accept what is written concerning abortion in Laudato si ?

nationaljournal.com quotes the papal encyclical:

"Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?"

Another bothersome quote for Democrats:

Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of "reproductive health". Yet "while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development." To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

I've read Pope Francis' latest encyclical and I've found nothing in it that I can object to. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, so my thoughts on whether the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change involves a certain amount of trust in "authorities". I trust Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and their ilk about as far as I can hurl the planet Earth, but I don't put much faith in the scientific views of Rush Limbaugh or Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe either.

Is the Earth warming? If so, is that warming due, in large part to human activity? I have absolutely no proof one way or the other, but I trust Pope Francis more than anyone else speaking on the issue.

What Would Jesus Do About Wealth Redistribution?

According to an article on the Al Jazeera website -What Would Jesus Do About Tax Policy?- Jesus wants us to pay more taxes to the government.

After years of debate and study "..........the Presbyterian Church USA, has come out with a detailed report that ties the religious duty of believers and government tax policy."

A link to that report on pdf can be found here.

From the report;

"It is a basic mark of a healthy social covenant that all share in the society’s benefits and burdens. Just taxation is a foundational part of a moral society’s answer to poverty and its close relatives, inequality, economic insecurity, and social immobility. Just taxation is also a key tool for enabling communities to thrive, for advancing science and culture, and for sustaining democratic institutions. Each citizen has an affirmative duty to contribute to the common good by paying their fair share of taxes."

Like a true Protestant, the writer of the article (as well as the original Presbyterian document) cherry picks an assortment of Gospel texts to inform us that Christianity demands progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth to the poor.

I will not argue that tax reform in the U.S. isn't needed. Of course, the need is there. I also believe that more could be done to help the poor - not just in the United States, but world wide.

I do have a bone to pick with the Presbyterian Church USA, however.

The Presbyterian Church USA doesn't seem to have a problem with following the Gospel and traditional Christian teachings when it follows their political agenda. Tax the rich, feed the poor? That's fine with them. Maintain traditional Christian teaching and values regarding abortion and same-sex "marriage"? Not so much.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) voted down measure to condemn ‘abortion’ of babies born alive.

US Presbyterian Church votes to redefine marriage, offer gay ‘marriages’ .

You could legitimately argue the merits of tax reform and redistribution of wealth, but when you attempt to argue that to do otherwise goes against Christ's teachings, your disregard of Christ's teachings on abortion and marriage don't help your case.

thinkthingsthrutotheirlogicalconclusion.org

The Left-leaning website, thinkprogress.org is not on my list of "must reads". I was recently led to the site, however, while looking for information on Pope Francis' upcoming encyclical on climate change. "Progressive" publications and websites are generally not complimentary toward the Catholic Church; the Church's view on climate change being the one notable exception.

Most of what I've come across lately, concerning the Pope and other Catholic Bishops, with regard to climate change has been encouraging. I'll go further into that subject in a later post, but for now, I want to write about thinkprogress.org's general assessment of the Catholic Church.

On the website's menu bar, we find nine sections - not counting the "Front" or Home page. These sections include, Climate, Economy, Health, Justice, LGBT (of course) World, Culture, Sports, and Election. In the same issue where I came across the article, Pope Francis Expected To Instruct One Billion Catholics To Act On Climate Change, I found no less than five additional articles on the Catholic Church. In the nine sections listed above, I found an article in all but three.

Any positive feelings toward the Church that might have been found in the piece on climate change was wiped away in the anti-Knights of Columbus article, How One Religious Organization Bankrolls America’s Social Conservative Movement. That the KoC would support the Church's teachings on abortion and same sex "marriage" is beyond the "brights" who write for thinkprogress.org. The site isn't called thinkthingsthrutotheirlogicalconclusion.org, after all.

In the article, New Catholic Survey Asks About People With ‘Homosexual Tendencies’ writer Jack Jenkins has to put in the old, “who am I judge?” comment. Progressives are so predictable.

In the Economy section, they speak highly of the Pope again by pointing out that Francis celebrated his birthday by giving sleeping bags to homeless people. They also have to mention, of course, that there was some "internal opposition in the Vatican" to his helping the homeless.

Finally, in Health writer Sam P.K. Collins' article, Low-Gluten Diet Alternatives Have Reached A New Frontier: The Catholic Church, there is absolutely no understanding of - or sympathy for - the Church's teachings on the Blessed Sacrament.

In an earlier post, I wrote of "my desire to get as many POV's as I could when trying to get the ends and outs of a variety of stories". Be that as it may, a link to thinkprogress.org will not be added to my News Sources column on the right.

Lawmaker Stands By Bill Requiring Man’s Consent for Abortion

In the far-right corner of this blog, one will find a series of links listed under News Sources. Most of the links featured are not to American news websites.

The reason behind my choices of sources has to do with my desire to get as many POV's as I could when trying to get the ends and outs of a variety of stories. Obviously, a story as reported on FoxNews or CNN might have a different slant when viewed on Aljazeera or Sputnik US. In some cases, stories found on BBC or on an Australian news outlet might not even appear on an American website.

One particular case in point involves the reporting of Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin's introduction of Missouri State House Bill 131 which would require that "no abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written,notarized consent to the abortion,except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest".

The American press [ kfor.com and kansascity.com for example] choose to paint Brattin's bill as an attempt to restrict women's Rights.

" 'It’s simply demeaning and degrading to women. We, and most of the voters in Missouri, believe that women can make their own decisions both about their lives generally and about their healthcare specifically,' said Laura McQuad, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri."

The same story, as presented by the Russian newsite,us.sputniknews adds something left out in the U.S. reporting.

"When Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin found out he was required to have his wife’s consent for his own vasectomy, he thought about how 'twisted' it is that the same rule does not apply to women seeking an abortion."

us.sputniknews quotes Brattin, by way of Mother Jones,

"When a man goes in for that procedure—at least in the state of Missouri—you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done," he told Mother Jones. "Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being's life, and I needed to get a signed form…But on ending a life, you don't. I think that's pretty twisted."

As someone who agrees with the Catholic Church's condemnation of vasectomies, I can understand the reasoning behind a law requiring a wife's consent before a man can have a vasectomy. I do, however, see Brattin's point. I've always disagreed with the idea that a man doesn't have a say in the abortion of his own child.

I'm sure that the biased American media will succeed in painting Rick Brattin as a far-Right wing, anti-choice kook. Knowing America as well as I do, I know that abortion on demand will continue to be the law of the land. It would be nice, however, if while defending abortion, the media could, at least present an accurate description of both sides of the argument.

I won't hold my breathe.

You Go Uruguay, I'll Go Mine.

Checking bbc news and aljazeera.com, I learned that six Guantanamo prisoners have resettled in Uruguay. There was no mention of the release on CNN, Fox or Drudge. I was beginning to believe that the story was going to be completely ignored by America news outlets, until I discovered articles on the transfer on the Washington Post and the Washington Times.

Prior to this story, my knowledge of Uruguay was pretty much, well, nothing. So, wishing to increase my knowledge of the country, I searched for information about the current president of Uruguay, José Mujica. For the most part, he seems like a man after Obama's heart. Mujica has called Guantanamo a "disgrace" and has used Guantanamo to bash George Bush. Being a typical politician, Mujica delayed bringing the prisoners into Uruguay until after the country's recent elections - an October opinion poll showed 58% of Uruguayans were opposed to bringing in the prisoners.



On the plus side, Mujica does not live in the Presidential palace, but on his wife's farm where the couple cultivate chrysanthemums. Called by some, the world's poorest president, Mujica donates about 90% of his monthly salary to charities which benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs. This leaves his take-home pay inline with the average Uruguayan income - $775 a month. I can't imagine any U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, doing the same.

On the negative side, Mujica supports abortion.

Not surprisingly, Mujica has stated on a left-wing Spanish television station, that he is an atheist.

As for the photo, due to Mujica’s efforts to legalize marijuana in Uruguay, the president has won the praise of Aerosmith's Steven Tyler.

Destruction is Transformation, I Suppose.

For three nights in a row, I've found myself awake at some time between midnight and 3 AM PHT. So, for the third night in a row, I found myself listening to portions of the Rush Limbaugh program.

In spite of what I may have written in an earlier post, I can't get away from American politics and all that's going on back in the States. If the reports I've read of the border situation and Obama's non-reaction are true, then it's finally gotten to the point where the rule of law is absolutely meaningless in the once great republic. Obama once proclaimed that he wanted to transform America. Well, I suppose destruction is transformational.

In 2008, when Obama first burst upon the scene, there were warnings. We knew from very early on that Obama was not only pro abortion but would not even suffer those infants which had survived a botched abortion to live. Obama is and always has been more than willing to sacrifice human beings -both born and preborn- to achieve his goals.

Anyone who is willing to kill innocent, unborn children is capable of anything and cannot be trusted. What is a lie compared to taking a life?

Am I wasting my time posting this? Will I convince any of Obama's supporters that they've made a horrible mistake putting him in office?

I suspect I am, indeed, wasting my time.

America is the product of heretical and rebellious Protestant thought. The "I, me, mine" point of view of Protestantism has infected everything in the United States, including, I'm sad to say, the Catholic Church.

The evil permeating the United States is the direct result of the Protestant philosophy that the individual is the final authority of what is right and wrong. It's a small step from Henry VIII's belief that the Catholic Church is wrong about divorce to the belief that the Church is wrong about same-sex "marriage".

The situation in America will only get worse. The Russian revolution was mild in comparison to what we can expect to occur in the United States during my life time. And I've got less time ahead of me than I do behind me.

Will my family be safe half way across the world? Perhaps safer than they would be had we stayed, but they will not be unaffected. The collapse of the U.S. will affect the whole world.

Turning Off the News.

Being retired, I have plenty of free time on my hands. If were living in the U.S., I’m certain that I’d fill the free time from noon until three PM listening to Rush Limbaugh. I’m living in Philippines where the time difference (when the U.S. is on Daylight Saving Time) is twelve hours. When it’s noon in Georgia, it’s midnight here. Consequently, even though Rush is available live on radio stations that can be accessed via the TuneIn Radio mobile app, I’m normally asleep when he is broadcast in the U.S..

.

This morning, however, I found myself awake at 1:00 AM PHT. For the first time in quite a long time, I listened to a bit of Rush’s program. After a few minutes, I found that, although Rush was his usual self, and I am still one of his biggest fans, political events in the U.S. no longer interest me as they once did. Having become an ex-pat, I am no longer captivated-nor imprisoned-by what the current U.S. president says or does.

With the possible exceptions of events happening in my old stomping ground of Rome, GA, I have very little interest in anything happening in America today. I suppose it’s a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same. The United States has become a virtual cesspool and short of divine intervention, the situation will not improve and I see little point of reading the same stories every day.

I can’t comprehend the current crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border.

Despite several States having constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex “marriage” it is only a matter of time before it becomes the law of the land in all of the fifty States. Along with the evil of abortion on demand, one particular political party is Hell bent on seeing life in America transformed.

As Robert Bork so brilliantly pointed out in his book from 1996, America is slouching towards Gomorrah. Too many conservatives try to place the blame on Barack Obama but I believe he isn’t the cause of the disease but a symptom. The hemorrhaging is so massive that a simple blood transfusion won't do the trick.

 The America people are reaping what they’ve sown ages ago.

First Monday

When he and I last spoke, my old and dear friend, Big Lew said, that when I had finally retired and emigrated from the United States, I’d no longer have an excuse not to write. While our leaving for Sibulan is still a week away, this is my first Monday as an officially retired person, so I suppose his statement still applies.

The age old problem is, of course, what does one write about?

The political situation in the U.S. no longer interests me. People living in a democracy (or democratic republic) get the government they deserve. You folks put the current regime in power; now you have to live with the consequences. 

From my point of view, the current POTUS isn’t the problem…..he’s a symptom of the degradation of the American culture. Abortion on demand is the law of the land and same-sex “marriage” will soon be. Far too many people wish to suck on the government teat, rather than work. One political party enables the proverbial drunken orgy that is America, while the other party is far too splintered and dysfunctional to achieve any worthwhile intervention.

I am not moving to a paradise; Philippines is by no stretch of the imagination, a Utopia. At least the country is not the dystopia that the U.S. is quickly becoming. Certainly, the fact that Philippines has a Catholic tradition, while the U.S. has a Protestant one, has a good deal to do with the difference.

America’s love for rugged individualism has led to an “I, me, mine” society. In the U.S., nothing can stand in the way of “me and my desires” no matter depraved and anti-social those desires are. America is the logical conclusion of the Protestant mind-set.

Most of my former co-workers imagine that my new life will consist of mostly lying on the beach or fishing. They’d find my plan to spend my time writing, attending Mass every day, gardening and raising pigs, too boring to even contemplate; too much like living in a monastery for their tastes, I suppose.

Pro-Abortionists Dragging Us Down the Rabbit-Hole.

Originally, Pro-lifers such as myself, would argue that abortion - taking the life of a human in the womb - was no different morally than killing the infant after he or she were born. We did this to show abortion in a negative light. Abortion and infanticide were called comparable evils.

Now, Pro Abortion advocates, such as Italian philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (seen smiling in the photo above) are comparing abortion and infanticide in what they consider a positive light.

In their piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics  the duo prefer the term "after-birth abortion" to "infanticide", however, in order "to emphasise (sic) that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be".

 To Giubilini and Minerva, "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense".

We in the Pro-Life world have called the moral status of an fetus equivalent to that of an infant and therefore both should live.

Today, the Pro-Abortion folks acknowledge the moral equivalence of an infant and a fetus, but to them, both can be killed when it's convenient for us.

God, help us.

Clueless Pro-Choicers.

I first came upon the video of Marni Evans and her fiance, John Lockhart, who had to delay a scheduled abortion after a decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Texas to implement new regulations on abortions by way of a ChurchMilitant.TV video. I found it again via Catholic Vote.org. Now, it appears the video is everywhere.

In the video below, the couple calmly discuss their decision to abort their unborn child.



I have to agree with the writer of an article on the National Right to Life website who said, "it’d be hard to pick a less sympathetic couple". The two appear to be totally clueless when it comes to understanding that they are talking about taking the life of a human being.

Their reasons for aborting their child? The typical, "we can't afford it excuse". They also admit that they haven't invested enough into their relationship.

Can't Ms. Evans see that her fiance is essentially telling her that, oh yes, I care for you but I can't possibly think of supporting your offspring?

Likewise, Evans is letting Lockhart know, in no uncertain terms, that she'd rather kill his child than bring it into the world.

Pro-abortion writers who agree with Evans & Lockhart call us "anti-choice". That's supposed to be an insult. How dare we deny someone a "choice"?

One especially clueless individual commenting on the original Texas Tribune article had this enlightening observation.

"If you don't want one,[abortion] don't have one. I don't like Brussels sprouts but I don't scream at people who choose eat them. Their choice."

The decision whether or not to allow your offspring to live is like choosing whether or not to eat Brussels sprouts.
Dear Lord, where do these people come from?

All we can do is pray for them.

A Lesson for American Catholic Priests.

Politicians told not to seek Holy Communion after pro-abortion vote in Irish parliament.

Sinched, Singed and Unhinged.

Thanks to LarryD @ Acts of the Apostasy  for his recent post, Houston Woman Sells Gov. Perry “Voodoo Dolls” To Benefit PP.

 Larry tells of a Houston, Texas area woman - Michelle Sinched - who has created voodoo dolls representing Texas Governor Rick Perry. These voodoo dolls come with "....tampon pins to act out your anger and or hexes upon his person".

All profits from the voodoo dolls will be donated to Planned Parenthood.

From the Houston Press:

"Each Perry voodoo doll is handmade by Sinched from materials left over from her many other projects. You can purchase a casual Perry doll in a anti-abortion coat hanger T-shirt for $25, or a suited version for $30. They are also available as a pair for $50, and each comes with a blank sign so you may write the pro-life slogan or Perry gaffe of your choice. The clothes are removable."

Not knowing Ms. "Sinched" or her husband Kenny Arocha, I can't speculate as to whether or not she believes in voodoo. While she might not actually believe in the powers of voodoo, it's telling that an abortion supporter would use demonic imagery to spread the message.

This isn't Ms.Sinched's first foray into - how shall I put this ? - the counter cultural netherworld.

In 2010 Ms.Sinched, AKA Michelle Betenbaugh, and her husband, with the help of the Texas ACLU, sued the school district in Needville, Texas to force the school to go against it's long standing grooming policy and allow their then five year old son to attend the school with long, braided hair. According to the suit, the son, in keeping with his Native American religious beliefs, has never cut his hair, which he has kept in one and two braids.

Of course, I'm a firm supporter of religious freedom and if wearing long hair is an authentic tenet of the Arocha's religion, then taking this to court was the right move; but I have to wonder - was this a religious statement or a fashion statement ? Was it really necessary to involve the United States Court of Appeals so Adriel Arocha could sport braided hair ?

By the way, photos posted on the Lipan Apache website (Adriel and Kenny Arocha's tribe) show most of the male members of the tribe wear short hair.

Just sayin'.

See Judge Rules Needville ISD Violated Native American Boy’s Constitutional Rights

Abortion in Sign Language.

I first came across this gif a few days ago. In it, a woman is demonstrating the word "abortion" in American sign language.

I didn't post the gif  at the time for, actually, a pretty stupid reason. I thought everyone had already seen it. Well, obviously, not everyone has.

When I came across a post on LarryD's blog, linking to the image, I decided that this needs to have more exposure.

This "sign" does a pretty good job describing abortion.