Thursday, July 20, 2017

Can feminists be on board with the transgender movement?

Girls can do anything boys can do, even physically, according to today’s feminists. But at what point will girls demand that actual biology should count after all?

At Cromwell High School in Connecticut, a 15-year-old boy – sporting a mustache – joined the girls’ track team because he has decided to call himself a girl. And in the politically correct, perverted, and more-and-more insane world of the left, the utterance, “I think, therefore I am” has become a literal mantra by which we’re all supposed to abide.

So what’s the problem that this boy who feels like a girl, and therefore should be considered a girl, has joined the track team? Because his male biology makes him superior to girls on the field, and he is crushing the competition. Too bad for the actual girls who put in all the tireless sweat and training. They can’t keep up with the boys. Who’d have ever thought it?

The question is, will feminists who have fought so hard for equality and recognition and acknowledgment speak up about this? Or have women been silenced and told to toe the line all in the name of the political correctness that they themselves so often embrace?

Then again, it may not be so simple. Speaking up these days comes with severe consequences, ranging from accusations of hatred, intolerance and bigotry, to the loss of jobs and the incursion of fines. But it will be interesting to see what women do when men pretending to be female start taking away the sports scholarships that female athletes work so hard for – will that be the straw that break’s the feminist’s back?

Friday, July 14, 2017

What military-funded 'gender transition' surgery really means...

In a disheartening move toward the complete breakdown of society and common sense, more than 20 Republicans have joined Democrats in voting to defeat an amendment that would have denied Pentagon funds to pay for "sex change" surgeries by US military personnel.

As reported by journalist Peter LaBera, “the amendment, introduced by Missouri Republican Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, follows another one she withdrew last week that targets the Obama-imposed policy allowing gender-confused transgender individuals to serve openly in the US military. This policy, which was imposed without congressional legislation or debate, orders all military personnel to accept transsexuals in bathrooms, showers and other private areas, showing zero concern for the feelings of women exposed to ‘gender pretenders’ taking advantage of the situation.

“As. Rep. Hartzler said, ‘By recruiting and allowing transgender individuals to serve in our military, we are subjecting taxpayers to high medical costs, including up to $130,000 per transition surgery, lifetime hormone treatments, and additional surgeries to address the high percentage of individuals who experience complications,’ adding that “transgender” surgeries alone could cost US taxpayers $1.35 billion over the next 10 years.

“She went on to note that with that money the DoD could comparatively purchase, ‘13 F-35's, 14 Super Hornet F-18’s, 2 B-21 long-range strike bombers, 8 KC-46's, all A-10 wing replacements or increased end strength of our troops.’

“Journalist Susan Wright adds, ‘Our national security is too important to use our military as a lab of social justice experimentation. Transgenders got the green light to openly indulge in their alternate lifestyle on the government dime, thanks to the Obama administration’s push to destabilize American might.’

Is it far-fetched to wonder how many gender confused individuals would consider joining the military just to get the free surgery?

What’s most outlandish is that our government claims it doesn’t have the money to care for our veterans who have been injured in combat, but there's money for this.

As for the transgenders, with all of the pre-treatments, and then surgeries and post-op treatments, these “soldiers” will never be combat ready. They will use up their entire enlistment time just recuperating from their own mutilations. On top of that, they will need constant hormonal treatments because their natural bodies are opposite of what they've turned them into, further decreasing the likelihood of them ever being combat ready or deployable. The combat-ready responsibility will continue to lie on the shoulders of non-gender confused soldiers while “gender-transition patients” lie in the infirmary “getting well”. What also seems to be overlooked here are the studies that show those who undergo “gender transition” surgery (a concept that actually is impossible to achieve, by the way) are at high risk for suicide and other mental issues. This is hardly going to help in achieving combat readiness.

But the real outrage over this is that it has nothing to do with gender identity. It's about transforming our way of life, family, values, morality and marriage. Through radical LGBT railroading, we’re turning our laws upside down to overthrow traditional values. When that’s accomplished, one step at a time, we will have completely destroyed the common good, individual rights, the God-given dignity of the human body, and common sense.

I thought Republicans might be our last hope in going down the path toward destruction, but sadly, at least 20 have proven that’s not to be the case. 

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Update: 10-month old baby imprisoned & sentenced to death

As a follow-up to my post the other day about Charlie Gard, the 10-month old baby boy who suffers from an extremely rare and deadly genetic disorder called Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome, the world has taken notice of the outrageously unjust hospital and court actions refusing to let Charlie's parents seek additional treatment for him. The courts won't even let Charlie's parents take their baby home to let him die there.
It doesn't matter that Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, have raised over a million dollars in private donations to take Charlie to America for an experimental treatment. It doesn't matter that the Vatican hospital, Bambino Gesu, has offered to take Charlie. It doesn't matter that a US hospital has also offered to take Charlie in an attempt to help. It doesn't even matter that, as one official at the hospital where Charlie's being cared for admitted, doctors “don’t know whether he suffers pain.”
Instead, the doctors at Britain’s Great Ormond Street Hospital have decided that Charlie’s condition is hopeless, and that he should be left to die. Britain’s High Court agreed, and the European Court of Human rights refused to intervene after Charlie’s parents appealed. Disappointingly, Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May also refused to intervene on Charlie's behalf. The doctors now have the legal go-ahead to take Charlie off life support.
While Charlie's parents know there is every chance the treatment won't work, don't they, as his parents, have the right to exhaust every possibility? Wouldn't you want to try if it were your loved one?
Regardless, what's most appalling and frightening about this is that the government and hospital employees are dictating when and where a person should die, and whether family members can seek additional treatment options. In other words, these strangers have taken ownership over this little boy and his life. This is unquestionably wrong.
Could this overreach have anything to do with the fact that the government has taken on a larger and larger role of authority over the family given the increase we've seen in broken, fatherless households? Have government officials become so accustomed to stepping in where parents aren't providing for their own children that they now don't recognize actively involved parents when it's right in front of them? Is this the power we've handed to government by allowing them to support able-bodied citizens at the expense of our own independence?
If so, where does it stop? This case is not just about Charlie Gard. It's about the alarming power of government to directly decide whether and where we live or die. That absolutely cannot be taken lightly by any of us.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

The Meaning of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”*

*I am off to celebrate Independence Day, but wanted to share this post with you, written entirely by James Jacobs in Crisis Magazine. It's a bit long, but it's worth the read, and the truth it contains is so needed in our world today, and especially in our country as we mark the birth of of our nation. Without a firm grasp and implementation of the truths outlined below, we can never be truly free, and the concept of independence remains just a concept. Happy 4th of July in all that it means!

by James Jacobs:
As we celebrate once again the anniversary of our nation’s Declaration of Independence, we can rightfully take pride in its recognition that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These words remind those in government, not just in this country but in all nations, of the limits of their power, a moral boundary that must never be violated if the government is to retain its legitimacy.
Yet it is crucial for us to revisit this patrimony. I have no doubt most Americans can recite these words from memory; but I have great doubts that Americans interpret them in the same way. This is why these words should not merely be a text displayed in the museum of national memory. Rather, they need to be the principles that illuminate public debate and guide public reason. John Courtney Murray, SJ, reflected on the American political tradition in his book We Hold These Truths. He begins his analysis by reminding the reader that civilization is formed by men who create a community through deliberation. Thus, at the heart of every civilization, there must be an ongoing argument concerning the values that hold the people together. This argument must be made continually, for the people must be convinced that these values are true, and that there is in fact agreement about their meaning. Murray recognizes that without this argument, society would lack a stable foundation: “In the public argument there must consequently be a continued recurrence to first principles. Otherwise the consensus may come to seem simply a projection of ephemeral experience, a passing shadow on the vanishing backdrop of some given historical scene, without the permanence proper to truths that are ‘held.’”
It has become a cliché that America is a divided country. It is clear there is little agreement about the meaning of even these most basic principles. The right to life is questioned, especially for those at the beginning of life and those near its end; the idea of liberty has come to be understood as a libertine autonomy which pursues unfettered individual expression as the sole goal of life; and the pursuit of happiness is no longer seen to be the common good pursued by men together, but is now taken to license radical anti-social individualism. Each of these trends erode society, for if we lack agreement on these basic principles, we cannot hope to attain agreement on more controversial issues. If America is to survive as a civilization, we need to engage the public argument in order to rediscover the real meaning of these rights; we must agree on them as the common principles that constitute our moral union as a nation.
Our Rights Grounded in Human NatureI would suggest that the founding principles of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” can only be properly understood from the perspective of natural law. The natural law insists that rights are grounded in the reality of human nature. Human nature is a universal and unchanging reality which remains the same all over the world and throughout history. It is therefore an objective referent that can be discovered by reason anytime and anywhere. Only if we define rights as they are understood by the natural law can we be confident that there is reasoned agreement between citizens. Furthermore, we can also know that we are in agreement with the Founders who wrote the Declaration as well as all those generations who will inherit this nation from us. Thus, only through a natural law argument can an objective notion of rights be delineated. One may object that the founders were not directly influenced by St. Thomas and the Catholic natural law tradition; nevertheless, it is clear that the natural law permeated their thinking indirectly through the shared Christian culture and the heritage of British common law.
If it is true that we are a divided nation, I would suggest that the ultimate source of our divisions today lies in our radically divergent understanding of rights. In recent decades, the concept of a “right” has been separated from its objective grounding in human nature, and so it has become a purely theoretical reality which is infinitely malleable. Traditionally, the idea of right (ius) implied an objectively correct state of affairs wherein a human being behaves and is treated in a manner befitting that human nature. In contrast to this, modern philosophy has abolished the idea of a universal human nature. Thus, rights can no longer be defined according to these objective moral relations. In place of this objective foundation, rights now arise from mere subjective preferences which are to be protected from any interference by others. The sanctity of individual preference soon balloons to include the idea of entitlements, preferences that should be supplied for by others. A brief consideration of the public debates will amply demonstrate how there is no limit to what some will now claim in the name of rights: homosexual “marriage,” euthanasia, free health care, and even a universal minimum income. Thus, without human nature as an objective reference to determine what constitutes a right, the idea becomes an empty variable upon which individuals project the most arbitrary of preferences.
Against this modern notion of rights, let us consider what the natural law tradition says. In his seminal study The State in Catholic Thought, Heinrich Rommen defines a right as “that conformity to human social nature of social acts and relations between persons and between persons and things.” It is human nature itself, and in particular his social nature which implies necessary relations with other men, which determines what sorts of acts and relations are correct. Because they are grounded in human nature, these rights are not given by the state, much less dreamt up according to individual preference. Rather, they reflect what is necessary if a man is to realize everything of which human nature is capable, that is, to attain a correct relation with human nature itself. It is here in particular that I think some basic concepts from St. Thomas Aquinas can help to elucidate the meaning of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as they relate to the reality of human nature.
Thomistic Explanation of the DeclarationA fundamental doctrine of Thomas’s account of the natural world is that there is an essential relation between what something is and what that thing does. If we see a tree with apples, we know it must be an apple tree since no other tree is capable of growing apples. In the same way, I would plant an apple tree in the hope to harvest apples, knowing that the nature of the tree is oriented to the act of growing apples. Thomas refers to this as a relation between “first act” and “second act,” with each “act” being a mode of reality. What something really or actually is (first act) determines what something really or actually does (second act). So, for example, he says, “There are two kinds of perfection, first and second. First perfection is the form of each thing, and that by which it has its act of existing…. Second perfection is operation, which is the end of a thing or the means by which a thing reaches its end.” Notice that there is an important difference between these two kinds of reality. What a thing is, its first act, remains constant and unchanging as long as the thing continues to exist. But what a thing does is constantly changing: in a few minutes I might be sitting, walking, thinking, and sleeping. Moreover, what a thing “does” also includes attaining properties, like weight, complexion, and location, which are also changing. Thus, all natural beings are in a constant state of development and change with respect to their properties, but the thing itself remains stable as the underlying cause of these changing properties.
But this fact of changing properties also reveals another important truth. The changes that occur are not normally capricious, but manifest a systematic order: all the activities and properties are directed to one activity that is the ultimate goal for which nature exists. For example, all the changes an apple tree goes through, from germination to growing flowers, are ordered to the growing of fruit. In fact Thomas says that God creates natures for the sake of the activity, for that activity is essential for the perfection of the universe as a dynamic whole. Thus, he says, “Indeed, all things created would seem, in a way, to be purposeless, if they lacked an operation proper to them; since the purpose of everything is its operation. For the less perfect is always for the sake of the more perfect: …so the form which is the first act, is for the sake of its operation, which is the second act; and thus operation is the end of the creature.”
And what is the activity to which human nature is directed? It is happiness. But happiness is the goal of human nature, common to all people, and so is an objective truth. Happiness most emphatically is not something that each person is free to define for himself. Just as an apple tree finds its perfection in growing apples, happiness as the perfection of human nature must be defined in terms of the distinctive powers that set humans apart from other natures: reason and free will. Accordingly, happiness is the activity of growing in wisdom and love, an activity that can only find completion in the Beatific Vision in which we know the Truth itself and love God who is goodness itself. Nevertheless, in this world man is called on to attain a limited happiness; and this fact is the source of human rights. Rights are derived from whatever is necessary for man to attain happiness in terms of wisdom and love.
Correctly Understanding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of HappinessLet us apply this back to the Declaration. The natural law can reveal a very specific meaning to our right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Aristotle argues that life is the being of living things; that is, the very existence of animate beings is tied up with life. The powers of life, which in man includes the powers of reason and will, are caused by the presence of a soul, which is, as Aristotle says, the form of the body. So we can see that the right to life relates to our first act as an individual entity, for as long as we exist as a living human being, we have the ability to grow in wisdom and love. Therefore, from the moment of conception to natural death, as long as a soul is present, a human being has a right to exist.
But humans live so that they may attain happiness. Thus, humans have a right to act in that most human way, to grow in wisdom and love. That is, since the goal of human existence lies in the exercise of reason and will, we have a right to be able to develop our intellect by growing in knowledge of truth and to perfect the will’s love of the good by delighting in the goodness of creation. It is clear, though, that for man to flourish in this way there needs to be more specific rights enabling the use of reason and will. Since knowledge grows through conversing with others, and love grows through friendship, these other rights focus on the necessary relations man has to others. Unlike so many of our contemporaries, however, who demand rights that reflect our random preferences, we can look to the Decalogue for guidance to know what humans really need. So, for example, there is a right to freedom of religion so we can know that God is in whom our ultimate happiness lies. Also, one needs a stable society in which peace is secured and justice protected, so there are authorities who have the right to be obeyed when deciding for the common good. In addition, a person has a right to a private family life as the first school of virtue, and so the sanctity of marriage must be protected. There are also rights to private property, so that one can attain maturity and independence by exercising stewardship. And if we are to grow in wisdom, there is a right to truthful communication with other people. In this way, as St. John Paul argued in Veritatis Splendor, the Decalogue indicates those rules that must be observed if we are to gain the happiness we all desire.
This leaves the Declaration’s right to Liberty. Again, Thomas’s philosophy can shed great light. In Thomas’s philosophy, “act” is always correlated with “potency.” While act is what something really is, potency indicates the ability to be other or change. The reason why our actions and properties are changing is that the nature has the potency to do something else: I am sitting, but can stand; I am heavy, but can lose weight; I am pale, but can tan. So, even though natures exist for the sake of their activity, it is also obvious that not all natures actually reach that activity: not all apple trees bear fruit, and not all humans grow in wisdom and love. However, each entity certainly has the power or inclination to attain its end. This is the potency inherent in any human being, whether or not he ever gets to happiness.
As mentioned earlier, the peculiar power by which a human being attains his end is through proper use of his reason and free will; it is through this potential that we achieve happiness. But reason and will are the source of human freedom, because we can know reality objectively and judge what ought to be done. So, while animals act on instinct alone, human beings have to exercise deliberative judgment. This choice is “right” if it conforms to the reality of human nature by maximizing wisdom and love, and wrong inasmuch as it departs from attaining wisdom and love. Liberty, then, is an ordered freedom, an exercise of choice for the sake of an objective notion of happiness. This is in stark contrast to how the right to Liberty has been interpreted in recent decades as an utterly unrestricted power. This is best exemplified in the notorious “mystery clause” from the Supreme Court’s 1992 Casey decision: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If this were the liberty defended by the Declaration, we could never have formed a society at all. Correctly interpreted, liberty does not mean we can do anything at all; it means that we can work toward happiness in a multiplicity of ways. Pace Justice Kennedy’s remarkable notion of liberty, man is not free to determine the nature of reality, especially the reality of human nature and the happiness that flows from it. Nevertheless, we do have freedom, for God has given different gifts to different people, and each must realize the vocation to which God has called him; our liberty lies in the ability to realize that for which we were created.
Our nation has prospered by protecting the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. However, in recent decades, as we have forgotten both human nature and the God who created it, these principles have been interpreted in fanciful and destructive ways, causing seemingly insuperable divisions in society. If we take up the public argument required of every civilized people, we can restore the true meaning of these rights. To do so, we need only remember the most basic axiom of Thomistic philosophy: action follows from being. By attending to this, we can protect life in its entirety, and define liberty and happiness according to the truth of human nature, thereby securing the common good longed for by those who first founded the United States in the name of universal human rights.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Compassion? Court denies parents' right to try to save son

Physician-assisted suicide is being packaged as a “dignified”, “self-affirming” choice for people to end their suffering by ending their lives. In some cases, like the book/movie, “Me Before You,” choosing death is even glamorized and romanticized. But what about court-ordered death? Such is the case of Charlie Gard, the 10-month-old baby in the United Kingdom who has a rare mitochondrial disease, and who is having his life support withdrawn today after his parents lost their appeal to transport him to America for an experimental treatment. 

Due to his condition, Charlie cannot breathe on his own, has seizures, and suffered severe brain damage as a result of his disease. Doctors told Charlie's parents earlier this year that they felt they could do no more to treat him, and recommended they withdraw life support. 

But Charlie’s parents wanted to try to save him. They heard about an experimental treatment in America that could possibly help. Apparently a lot of people supported them in this hope because they helped Charlie's parents raise over $1 million to move him to the US for treatment.

Well, too bad, according to the European Court of Human Rights: it ruled against Charlie’s parents earlier this week, denying them the right to seek the treatment they want to try for their son. The reason? The court said that they did not believe the experimental treatment would benefit Charlie, and that it would cause him "significant harm." So they ordered Charlie's ventilator be removed instead.

It’s bad enough that a court is telling Charlie’s parents they cannot try at least one more time to help their son, but worse, the court won’t even let the parents take their son home to die there. They are being denied even this dignity, while the hospital is rushing to remove the ventilator.

There are few words to describe the barbaric nature of this cruelty. While the court takes it upon itself to decide that a baby should die on the court's terms, couldn’t the court at least allow the parents to decide the location of their son's death on their own terms?


This whole situation is a frightening commentary on how bureaucrats’ are increasingly taking it upon themselves to decide who gets to live and die, while trying to cloak it as compassion for the suffering. But is it compassion or simply a court-sanctioned co-opting of human life?

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Republicans: Yes, please "take away" my health insurance

I'm not sure what's holding up ObamaCare repeal - whether it's because of spineless RINOs afraid to take on the Democrats' or media's attacks, or zealous conservatives waiting for a better deal, but I am hoping and praying that we can still get rid of at least key parts of this monstrosity of a law. 

At this point, I don't actually care if the Senate's version has every component I would wish for, but from what I can see, it has at least the basics. For starters, it removes the individual mandate. Of course, Senator Chuck Schumer warned us all that if the penalty for not having health insurance were to be removed, about 22 million people would be without health insurance. So you mean if we remove the gun from people's heads regarding forced health insurance, they might just say "see ya"? Does this mean Americans don't actually like to be forced to buy products? That's quite a revelation. Thanks, Chuck.

What I still don't hear enough about though is it's not just the rising premiums that are an issue, but the outrageous deductibles. I know I've said this many times before, but I pay a few hundred dollars every month for my health "insurance" premium just so Nancy Pelosi can brag about giving the masses health insurance. But Nancy is mute about the fact that the premium I pay every month doesn't actually cover any health services - at least not for the first $6,000 in medical services that I have to pay for out of my own pocket before my "health insurance" company will pay even a part of my bills. And this is only for the year. Come January, it all goes back to zero and I have to pay the next $6,000 again - plus the hundreds of dollars a month just to satisfy Nancy and Chuck.

But Nancy warns us that if we repeal ObamaCare, "hundreds of thousands of people will die." She doesn't say how not being forced to buy a bad product will actually cause people to die, but I love how she and the other abortion-supporting Democrats suddenly are concerned about human life, despite promoting and financially supporting the killing of 55 million Americans through abortion since 1973's passage of Roe v. Wade. Sorry, Nancy. Not buying it.

What it comes down to is that people like me are devoting a good portion of our resources to our monthly premiums to keep Nancy and Chuck happy, but since carrying this "insurance" is required by the government thanks to them, we possibly have to choose between paying the premium or receiving actual medical services. Here's hoping I stay healthy. Maybe if we got rid of this horrible bill, people could actually afford healthcare again, if Nancy and Chuck really are interested in affordable healthcare, that is. Better yet, aside from the truly down and out who do need assistance, how about removing the government altogether from our healthcare?

In the meantime, while Nancy, Chuck and friends go around warning people that the mean, old Republicans are trying to take away my health insurance, all I can say is, yes, please take it away. Let's start over. I know we can do better and it would be nice to no longer have to choose between satisfying the government and seeking any medical services I may actually one day need.

But for that to happen, the spineless RINOs need to realize why Republicans were given control of the government in November. Living in fear of Democrats or what the media might say is hardly the way to go about achieving the change we are all craving.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Left's evil rhetoric vs. the real thing

I just have a simple question: With American kids enacting mock assassinations of President Donald Trump in school, “entertainers” like Kathy Griffin holding a decapitated “head” depicting Trump, Snoop Dog shooting Trump in the head in a video, Robert De Niro saying he wants to punch Trump in the face, Madonna saying she has thoughts of blowing up the White House, the New York City Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar showing a vicious stabbing of Trump, complete with a grieving “Melania Trump” at his dying side, Marilyn Manson depicting the killing of Trump in a video, and on and on…I am just wondering: do you think this disgusting, deadly, violent mindset of the Left helped motivate the real-life attempt to murder Republicans yesterday in Virginia as they practiced for a charity baseball game?

The shooter was careful to identify his victims as the “Republican baseball team”. He has in the recent past made public comments about hating and wanting to kill Republicans, and while Democrats try to portray Republicans as wanting to kill people because they want to repeal the brutal Obamacare, actual Republicans are being targeted in lethal ways. Of course no amount of rhetoric can be blamed exclusively for someone's actions, but to what extent is the unprecedented hatred we are seeing toward President Trump and Republicans in general creating an atmosphere of anything goes?

I don’t see any conservatives calling for the death of liberals as a form of so-called entertainment, or celebrating when someone makes an attempt on their lives, do you? Did you ever see or hear this kind of behavior directed at Barack Obama in such a public, constant, vicious way?  And what are the haters on the Left saying about the incident today? They're celebrating it, for starters. Vicious posts on Twitter and other venues express downright glee that it was Republicans who got shot, or remorse that more Republicans weren't shot. And of course, the Left can't resist taking a page right out of Obama's playbook and calling the crime nothing more than another example of the need for more gun control. 

So let’s get this straight. The Left’s diabolical rhetoric toward Trump and Republicans in general is nothing less than the potential inciting of violence, yet their only response is to celebrate the attempted murder of Republicans and then recommend taking away our means to protect ourselves from the violence they encourage with their own words and actions.

Once again, the Left shows its true colors. 

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Happy Flag Day!

Hi Everybody - I hope you have all been doing well. Long time, no speak! I won't insult or bore you with excuses as to why it's been so long since I've posted here, but I wanted to make sure to carve out some time today because the day means a lot to me. Today is Flag Day! On May 30, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson issued a presidential proclamation establishing a national Flag Day on June 14 to commemorate the flag's adoption on June 14, 1777, by resolution of the Second Continental Congress. 

The flag is so much more than three colors, stripes and stars. It stands for our country, in particular the freedom we all enjoy. Our flag is the symbol of the things we as Americans hold in our hearts and minds. It stands for our right to hold and express our beliefs and our values, to protect our homes and our loved ones, and to enjoy general safety and the abundance of God's bounty in our land. To think of all that has been given over the years - the sacrifices, the suffering, the lives, so that our flag can fly freely as a symbol of America is truly humbling. 

It's sad how many people have been conditioned to think of America as evil, exclusive, and prejudiced, and therefore, see the flag as a symbol of dark things, something that should be disdained, and in some cases, even banned -- instead of being seen as the most visible symbol of the country that has been the greatest force for good the world has ever known.

If you have a US Flag, I hope you're displaying it proudly today. And if you get the chance, take a moment to teach a young person about how blessed they are to live in the greatest nation on earth! 

Happy Flag Day! (and Happy Birthday to President Trump!!) 


Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Assisted suicide more acceptable than a chicken sandwich?

A petition mission making the rounds addresses the fact that "Chick-fil-A was banned recently at Fordham University -- a Catholic institution. Why? Because leftist students don't like the restaurant owner's biblical view on natural marriage. So Chick-fil-A is not welcome on campus. 

However, a pro assisted suicide group called End of Life Choices New York has been invited to freely lecture on campus. In fact, the next pro assisted suicide lecture will be held on June 7 at Fordham's Lincoln Center campus.

Still, no matter how its advocates try to package it (e.g. death with dignity, compassion, etc.) assisted suicide or euthanasia is nothing more than another part of the Culture of Death. 

Despite the oath all doctors take to "do no harm", euthanasia turns doctors into killers - and it treats the elderly and infirm like "inconveniences" whose lives are cut short. 

But the Church is so clear on the issue. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that: 'Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.'

So, should Catholic universities host advocacy groups that publicly support assisted suicide?

If you think not, feel free to add your name to the petition to make your voice heard. Enough voices could result in the cancellation of this pro-death lecture at a university that should be promoting life instead."

Friday, May 19, 2017

The only treason here is by the left, not Trump

In response to all the hoopla that President Donald Trump shared classified information with Russia about terror threats involving laptops on airplanes, even Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who reportedly received this illicit information, mocked the accusation. 

Without directly confirming the details of their conversation, Lavrov said he didn’t understand what the “secret” was since the US introduced a ban on laptops on airlines from some Middle Eastern countries two months ago.

Asked to comment on the controversy surrounding the reported intelligence-sharing, he said media have reported that “the secret” Trump told him was that “‘terrorists’ are capable of stuffing laptops, all kinds of electronic devices, with untraceable explosive materials.” 

Well, no kidding. Everyone knows that, don't they?

“As far as I can recall, Lavrov said, "maybe one month or two months before the Trump administration had an official ban on laptops on airlines from seven Middle Eastern countries, it was connected directly with the terrorist threat. So, if you’re talking about that, I see no secret here.”

This hysteria over sharing supposed secrets is in addition to the DOJ’s appointment of former prosecutor Robert Mueller to lead the special inquiry into the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia, which is also absurd. Maybe Russia did some email hacking to leak information about Hillary Clinton (that our own news media wouldn't report) and maybe that information swayed voters, who knows. But there isn't one shred of evidence that Donald Trump and his campaign were involved in that.

There was, however, substantial, staggering evidence of Hillary Clinton's treasonous corruption regarding her use of private email servers at the risk of national security. Now-fired FBI Director James Comey himself went into great detail about the extent of Hillary's wrongdoings - he just decided there was no need to prosecute her for reasons we can only guess at. And remember Barack Obama on a live mic whispering to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev about having "more flexibility" with Russia once the 2012 election was over? Did the left care about what that might have meant? But Trump - with zero evidence of anything illegal - already has a special prosecutor.

These false reports – and subsequent actions like special prosecutors -- are dividing our country like never before, they’re corrupting the minds of young people, and their purpose is clear and twofold: one, to undo the validly elected Trump presidency any way possible by those who simply cannot stand that an outsider like Trump bucked the system to become president, and, two, to silence the rest of us who helped make Trump president.

If anyone is guilty of treason – besides Hillary Clinton, of course – it is the Democrats' and mainstream media’s role in undermining our president by false means, putting this choke-hold on our country, and leading us down a path where every day American voices are no longer heard. Kind of like what you might see in North Korea today.

Worse, these antics are producing a citizenry that does not trust those who have been legitimately elected, politicians who would willingly destroy the belief in government to topple an opposition party, and a media that no longer reports news, but manufactures it.  

Add to this a population that is so increasingly uneducated and gullible and hysterical that they will believe anything the media says, and what we have when we put it all together is a formula for disaster.

Enough is enough.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Religious freedom: How reliant on government should we be?

Many conservatives are unhappy with President Donald Trump's recently signed “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty”, because they say it doesn't go far enough to address the real concerns about threats to religious liberty. 

But others are a bit more optimistic. For instance, Mike Berry, Senior Counsel and Director of Military Affairs, said it "is the best news we’ve received from the White House in eight years,” and President and CEO of the National Religious Broadcasters Jerry Johnson said, “President Trump deserves praise for applying an emergency brake on the government’s movement toward coercion and discrimination.”

So what’s missing from the President’s order? Some say the president's order merely addresses the Johnson Amendment, which basically only pertains to churches' limitations on political involvement. But the concern is that, as bad as the Johnson Amendment has been, it has not been our biggest problem. 

In fact, there was an original draft of the religious liberties executive order leaked back in February that addressed much more of what many people are hoping for in terms of protecting religious freedom. According to Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, the original draft, if adopted, “would have finally and fully protected Americans from having to violate their consciences under the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate. It would have protected the ability of all Americans to buy health care that doesn’t cover or subsidize abortion. And it would have protected all Americans who believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife from federal government penalties or coercion.” 

Those are the greater issues, issues which affect the average citizen, yet they’re not specifically addressed in the president’s new order.

But there’s still something positive here. Simply put, Trump’s order is a whole lot better than Hillary Clinton would have done, and at the very least, it's encouraging to hear the President of the United States say, “We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore. And we will never, ever stand for religious discrimination. Never, ever.”

He also stated, “Under my administration, free speech does not end at the steps of a cathedral or a synagogue or any other house of worship. We are giving our churches their voices back and we are giving them back in the highest form.”

Yes, the executive order is flawed, but it’s still positive that our president used his voice for this cause and displays the administration’s commitment to religious liberty in general.

But regardless of what President Trump does or does not do, the most important thing is that we remember our religious liberties come from God, not government, so we need to be careful about making government the sole decision maker on our religious freedoms. Yes we need the Constitutional protection of our liberties. Of course. But currently, the problem of intolerance toward religion in America is a cultural problem, not a political one, and the farther we get from God, the more reliant on government we will be for who decides how free we are, because it will largely come down to the personal opinion of the person in charge. Look at the attacks on liberty under Obama, for instance. For now, we may be safe with Trump, but if our liberties are left to the whim of an executive order, that is a concern that can't be overlooked. 

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Pro-lifers care more about women than pro-choicers do

Following the Michigan Senate’s recent approval of a “Choose Life” license plate, an op-ed cartoon in one of the Sunday papers depicted pro-lifers rolling up their car windows to avoid impoverished children begging on the roadside. As usual, pro-lifers are portrayed as caring more about babies in the womb than about women or babies after they’re born.

Apparently there are some so fiercely committed to abortion that they cannot even bear the notion of encouraging the choice of life. But to accuse pro-lifers of not caring about women and children outside the womb as an argument against pro-life license plates (or pro-life initiatives in general) is a blatant lie that deserves exposure.

First, the “Choose Life” plates would actually help fund programs that assist women facing unplanned pregnancies, supplying them with food, housing, clothing, education, baby supplies, and the like. The plates are not about state-sponsorship of repealing abortion rights, as some opponents have also charged. They’re about letting private citizens publicly display their desire to change hearts, while supporting women facing unplanned pregnancies. Really, what is wrong with that?

Truth be told, since Roe. v. Wade, it is pro-lifers – not abortion supporters -- who have taken the lead in offering vital services to mothers and children in need. Countless volunteers do all they can to help these women, including driving them to doctor appointments, providing free ultrasounds, and helping them with housing, clothes, education, jobs and baby supplies.

This is done largely through approximately 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in our country -- at least 27 of which are in Southeast Michigan alone -- as well as local pro-life ministries like Abigayle House, Mary’s Mantle, and others across the country that exist solely to provide material and emotional support to pregnant women and mothers in need.

Also, let’s not forget the Catholic Church, perhaps the single most influential pro-life institution in the U.S., and one of -- if not the -- largest private donor of financial and other assistance to those in need, including pregnant women and single mothers. Add to this the many other Christian outreach services that commit time and private resources to helping women long after they give birth. Tell me one pro-abortion group that offers this kind of help to women interested in carrying out their pregnancies.

These pro-life resources are funded pretty much the old-fashioned way, too: through private donations. In contrast, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, receives more than one million dollars a day from our government, while partnering with groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America to support legislation across the country – such as California’s recent Reproductive FACT Act -- that compels pro-life CPCs to speak the government’s approved message, not the pro-life message, and seeks to shut down CPCs altogether.

So who really cares about women here? If abortion supporters want to claim that title, then they need to start acknowledging the harmful effects of abortion. Instead, they ignore myriad studies that link abortion to increased cancer risk, anxiety, depression, substance abuse and other maladies. They reject efforts to require abortion clinics to share this information with women, or to show women an ultrasound before an abortion so women can make a truly informed decision. Abortion supporters even reject legislation that would require abortion clinics to meet the same standards of cleanliness and licensing that your average hair salon must meet.

Moreover, while congressional Democrats decry the Trump Administration’s recent decision to eliminate funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), abortion advocates ignore the UNFPA’s complicit partnership in some of the most unspeakably brutal population control programs around the globe – euphemistically called “family planning” and “reproductive health” -- including China’s genocidal one-couple, one-child policy, in addition to abortion, forced sterilization and savage eugenics programs throughout the developing world. Almost exclusively, it is women and children who are the victims of this fanatical crusade against life.

But why deny these truths? It’s simple. Abortion is a big money maker. So with statistics showing that almost 80% of U.S. women who see their baby in an ultrasound decide against abortion, CPCs (who provide free ultrasounds) become a major threat to the abortion industry. And as public opinion on abortion continues to change thanks to ever-advancing medical technology, it’s become much harder to push a blatant pro-abortion agenda. Hence, the truth must be buried and false claims about pro-lifers must be perpetuated.

I applaud the Michigan Senate for approving the “Choose Life” plates and hope the House will follow suit. In fact, in this dark time we’re in, where the most simple “Choose Life” initiatives invite ridicule, and the ending of innocent life becomes profitable, isn’t now actually a really good time for us all to promote the God-given sanctity of human life that so many seek to destroy?

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Dove takes a dive into the absurd

Have you seen Dove's latest commercial? The really disturbing one promoting its new product line, Baby Dove? The one that features young women sharing their views of mothering? The one that shows a cross-dressing father trying to pass himself off as a "real mom" and who tells us that when it comes to mothering, “There’s no one right way to do it all"? Yeah, that's the one.

As an alert from One Million Moms reports, "The ad begins with the ironic words, “'Moms are redefining what it means to be a ‘good mom.’” And then while showcasing all kinds of 'mothers', a male grad student 'Shea' proclaims that he and his wife — who is the actual biological mom but never speaks during the commercial — are both 'moms' of their newborn son. The man in the ad is actually the baby's biological father dressed as one of the moms, saying he is the baby's mom.

First, what an incredible insult to actual women who long to have children, but for whatever reason, cannot or have not had children. Second, what an outrageous lie Dove is shoving in our faces. All the makeup, high heels and body-disfiguring surgeries in the world cannot and do not change a man's chromosome-based identity.

And what about this baby's father? He has essentially been abandoned by his dad, who believes a father is not important, and that two "moms" will be better for this child. How selfish and misguided a message Dove is sending.

While celebrating this man's own narcissistic and disordered desires, “Shea” (and Dove) ignores both the needs and future desires of his son who will indeed long for a father who rejoices in his role as a father. His son will long for a father who isn’t a public spectacle. And his son will need a father to be a role model for him, to show him the way to become a man and to teach him to love his own maleness. “Shea” will instead teach his son to be ashamed of and guilty about his own natural and proper feelings of sorrow for his missing father.

'Shea’s'delusional belief that he can be a woman and a mother suggests the absurd idea that belief can alter reality. The message of the ad is that good mothers are those who fully embrace their own selfish desires and their own internal sense of right, wrong, and reality. The ad does nothing to underscore the unchangeable reality that, at the very least, a 'good mother' requires that one be biologically female. The ad concludes with the audacious and ironic words: 'To #RealMoms everywhere.'"

How degrading to actual real moms everywhere. Shame on Dove for spreading such filthy lies that can only further damage our already suffering culture.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Earth Day doomsday predictions that never came to pass

The following article is from energy and science reporter, Andrew Follett, published by The Daily Caller (and sent to me by my favorite cousin:-). Being that today is Earth Day, I thought today would be the perfect day to share it. Yes, we should all respect the planet, e.g. don't litter, etc., but we should never allow ourselves to become hysterical about it like the alarmists are, and should never turn the planet into something to worship. In other words, let's keep things in perspective. Happy Earth Day!

From Andrew Follett:
Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.

Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.

So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.
Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.

Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.

5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”

Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.

6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.

Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.
Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.

7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.

American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.

Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.