Friday, June 20, 2008

Selling Out the Cross

So much for being "sola Scriptura." Sigh. Our Protest-ant brothers and sisters are taking one more giant leap forward from separating themselves from the Truth of Christ. No more does Scripture hold sway as the hill to live and die on. No, now it is our swaying passions that we will entrench in Law and whitewash over the hard Truth of the Gospel.

How Presbyterians get past the warnings of Sodom and Gomorrah and the words of St. Paul in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians is beyond me. The last time I checked, God was still in charge, even if the darkness in our hearts keeps us blind from seeing His radiance. The fact that Christian denominations are affirming a lifestyle that will never fulfill and rewriting the truth about God and man blows my mind.

Oh, may we pray that the Presbyterians get a clue before it is too late.

Article Date: Jun 20, 2008

Presbyterians to Consider Gay Marriage Initiative

SAN JOSE, Calif. - Gay marriage will be on the agenda as the Presbyterian Church USA begins its biennial meeting this weekend in California, where same-sex weddings became legal this week.
Delegates to the General Assembly will be asked to rewrite the church's Book of Order to allow Presbyterian ministers to conduct wedding services for gay couples. The church constitution currently defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman.
The Reverend Parker Williamson, a leader of conservative Presbyterians, says gay rights get more support from the denomination's leaders than from people in the pews.
In April, the denomination's highest court found that a lesbian minister who officiated at weddings for two lesbian couples was guilty of misconduct, but gave her the lightest possible punishment.

Article found at CR Daily


Thursday, June 19, 2008

So Thirsty for Love
Introducing Japan's "Pleasure Droids"

Well, I've always thought that the Japanese were on the cutting edge of technology, but I may have to repeal my comment. Or actually, maybe they're long on technology but short on love.

For now there is a robot entitled "Eternal Maiden Actualization Robot," which allows men to kiss it as they would a girlfriend. Now, I'm not exactly sure how that would work, but I know from experience that I would much rather have a pair of soft lips attached to a real person than some piece of plastic that simply simulates kissing.

Although their abortion rate is not as crazy-high as China's, I am sure that the people of Japan are experiencing a population deficit, causing some men to trade in the real thing for something that only simulates love and will never actually satisfy them.

What truly gets me is they think that this acts like a real girlfriend. You mean, like someone who you can sacrifice and serve? Sure, I may be able to change the robot's armor, but if these guys think that it is going to prepare them for a real relationship, they've got another thing coming. Just as blow-up dolls don't satisfy, this little robot is simply going to cost a little more while leaving them just as empty.

Oh, and don't forget to click on this link--The video is definitely worth a laugh....but maybe nervously, because with our lack of understanding real love, we may be replacing humans with robots.

Japan's robot for lonely men (+video)
9:13AM Wednesday June 18, 2008
Sega's new Eternal Maiden Actualisation robot enters 'love mode' when a human head gets close. Photo / Reuters

TOKYO - She is big-busted, petite, very friendly, and she runs on batteries.

A Japanese firm has produced a 38 cm (15 inch) tall robotic girlfriend that kisses on command, to go on sale in September for around US$175, with a target market of lonely adult men.

Using her infrared sensors and battery power, the diminutive damsel named "EMA" puckers up for nearby human heads, entering what designers call its "love mode".

"Strong, tough and battle-ready are some of the words often associated with robots, but we wanted to break that stereotype and provide a robot that's sweet and interactive," said Minako Sakanoue, a spokeswoman for the maker, Sega Toys.

"She's very lovable and though she's not a human, she can act like a real girlfriend."

EMA, which stands for Eternal Maiden Actualisation, can also hand out business cards, sing and dance, with Sega hoping to sell 10,000 in the first year.

Japan, home to almost half the world's 800,000 industrial robots, envisions a $10-billion market for artificial intelligence in a decade.



Wednesday, June 18, 2008

For the Love of God, Wake up California Catholics!

"It's here, whether you like it or not."

This was the phrase that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson used when 4 judges in California overturned the will of the people last month. Now, their judicial tyranny is bearing fruit, as homosexual couples are beginning to wed. Right now, this unjust practice is well underway, with 230 licenses being issued on Tuesday.

And I just can't get enough of the language that is being used: The reason why these persons with SSA are doing this is because of "love" and "committment." For a moment, Never mind that they've completely forgotten that true love is about a total sincere gift of self, which in the marital act always includes the total giving of our fertility to the other who receives it. Never mind that at least 75% of persons with SSA in "committed" relationships have to allow for cheating.

No, what is of gravest concern is that in the whole history of humanity is being re-written before our eyes. And any culture that has committed to allowing homosexuality as a "right" and "normality" has been known to go as the do do (see ancient Rome and Greece).

To quote Fr. Thomas Loya, "Those four judges better duck," for what God has created, no man has the right to redefine, and there will be hell to pay. If Catholics don't stand up and fight, proclaiming the truth about love and marriage, we will be reaping the whirlwind of our silence. Whether we like it or not.

Hundreds of gay couples wed across California
Email this Story

Jun 18, 6:16 AM (ET)


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Wearing everything from T-shirts to tuxedos and lavish gowns, hundreds of same-sex couples rushed to county clerks' offices throughout California to obtain marriage licenses and exchange vows as last-minute legal challenges to gay marriage failed.

All 58 counties began issuing licenses Tuesday following an order from the state's highest court.

San Diego County, typically a Republican stronghold, added four walk-up windows and assigned 78 employees to issue marriage licenses, up from the usual 19. It issued 230 licenses on Tuesday, breaking its previous single-day record of 176 on Valentine's Day 2005.

At the West Hollywood City Hall, George Takei - who played Sulu on the original "Star Trek" - beamed as he and his partner of 21 years, Brad Altman, obtained one of the new gender-neutral marriage licenses - with the words "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "bride" and "groom." They are planning a September wedding.

"I see before me people who personify love and commitment," a grinning Takei told the crowd. He flashed the Vulcan hand salute from "Star Trek" and, in a twist on the Vulcan greeting from the TV series, said: "May equality live long and prosper."

There were scattered demonstrations outside some offices and courthouses, and courts in Sacramento and San Francisco rejected separate bids by groups seeking to halt same-sex marriage.

"It's something to just pray about. It's not a time to be joyful," 16-year-old demonstrator Juliya Lyubezhanina said as she watched dozens of balloon- and rainbow flag-carrying couples.

One conservative activist said an effort to pass a constitutional amendment in the fall that would outlaw gay marriage again in California could fail if opponents came on too strong.

"The major media would love to see us engage in fierce protests and hostile demonstrations of outrage against the licensing of same-sex 'marriages,'" said Ronald Prentice, chairman of the coalition. "Our battle is not against the same-sex couples who are pursuing the opportunity to 'marry' granted them by the activist judges on the California Supreme Court."

Some couples came from out of state. Unlike Massachusetts, the only other state to legalize gay marriage, California has no residency requirement for a marriage license. Many gay activists are likening the moment to the 1967 Summer of Love, when young people from across the country converged on California in what came to be regarded as the birth of the counterculture.

In a shady plaza in Bakersfield, where the county clerk stopped officiating at marriages altogether rather than preside over same-sex ceremonies, newlyweds wearing Cinderella-style gowns and matching tuxedos were showered with rose petals while a photographer who set up on a park bench offered to snap wedding portraits.

Although some couples said they preferred to wait until after the election because they feared their marriages would nullified at the ballot box, others said they wanted to make history, especially if the opportunity to get married could be lost.

"There's a window, and we want to take advantage of that window, because who knows what's going to happen in November," said Jay Mendes, 40, as he and his partner of three years, Vantha Sao, 22, waited to obtain a marriage license in West Hollywood.

A recent Field Poll showed that Californians favor granting gays the right to marry 51 percent to 42 percent. It was the first time in 30 years of California polling that the scales tipped in that direction.

In a sign of the growing political support for same-sex marriage, the Los Angeles City Council president, the mayor of Sacramento and at least two state lawmakers agreed to officiate at the weddings of staff members and friends.

On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, a gay men's chorus sang while supporters handed out cupcakes. Inside, Helen Zia, 55, and Lia Shigemura, 50, of Oakland, sang "The Chapel of Love," their voices echoing through the marble halls. They wore orchid leis from Shigemura's home state of Hawaii.

"This is the most meaningful day of my life. I've always wanted to get married," Shigemura said. "I just never thought it'd be possible."


Associated Press writers Elliott Spagat in San Diego, Gillian Flaccus in Santa Ana, Laura E. Davis in West Hollywood, Garance Burke in Bakersfield, Malia Wollan in Martinez, Don Thompson in Sacramento, and Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco contributed to this report.


Friday, June 13, 2008

Time for the Beloved to love the Lover

It is amazing how deep the wounds go in the clean-up of the clergy sex scandal. Yes, it was true that a very small portion of priests abused small children. Yes, it is true that an even smaller amount of bishops covered up some of the abuse. Yes, it is true that some of the victims were just in seeking financial compensation for their psychological trauma (although, it is very possible that in some of the cases, there has been a pursuit of suing dioceses, not for justice, but for revenge).

Given this fact, recalling these issues, I remember Fr. John Corapi relating after the scandal broke that when he was in the airport and as he was walking down the concourse, he said hello to a small child. His mother came running over and with teeth bared, snarled, "Get away from him!" I can almost hear the bullet hitting his soul now.

Although our priests certainly are called to set a very high standard of holiness (just like all of us), they also are sinners. And because of that, they need mercy (just like all of us). First and foremost, priests are to be living sacrifices, laying down their life for their Bride, the Church, in an image of Christ, the Bridegroom. They are called to give up their own will so that their Bride may live. Yet because this is a war, oftentimes the battles become to much and they fall.

This is why what the Catholic Bishops are proposing is extremely important. Priesthood morale must be repaired. Put this in terms of the domestic church, the family. If the heart of the husband and father is continually stomped on, his wife and children are going to take the brunt of it. While a husband needs to receive his encouragement primarily from God, his wife, because they are one-flesh, must be prepared to come to his aid, to nurse his wounds, so that he can get back on his feet and get back into the war of serving his wife and family.

And so it is with our priests. We, as Bride, must come to the aid of our Bridegroom, and seek out ways how we can bathe and dress their wounds. So what I'm proposing is this: take your local priest our to dinner. Or better yet, have him over for a family meal. Write him an encouraging letter. Basically, do something that will help him to know that you appreciate his sacrificial life for him. And in knowing that he is loved by his Bride, he in turn will be able to get back in the ring and go back in the battle.

Article Date: Jun 13, 2008
Catholic Bishops Aim to Improve Priest Morale

ORLANDO, Fla.-- Meeting for the first time since Pope Benedict XVI visited the U.S. and spoke of the deep shame he felt over clergy sex abuse, America's Roman Catholic bishops Thursday began discussing how they can repair relations with priests after six years of scandal.

A small group of bishops and clerics, over a private lunch, started talks about the pain and trauma clergy have suffered since the crisis erupted in 2002. Embarrassment ran so deep that many priests stopped wearing their Roman collars in public at the height of the scandal.

Archbishop Roger Schwietz of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska, said bishops are trying to learn directly from clergymen what church leaders should do to improve morale.

"I'm hoping with the priests to work out an equitable and just way to preserve the reputation of priests and also take accusations seriously," Schwietz said.

Most new claims that flooded dioceses over the last six years involved wrongdoing from decades ago. About 4 percent of priests who served between 1950 and 2002 were credibly accused of abuse, according to research commissioned by the bishops. But those distinctions were often lost in the public outcry over the church's failures to protect children.

Ohio Judge Michael Merz, chairman of the National Review Board, the lay panel the bishops formed to help respond to the scandal, said he learned of one priest who was stretching in a public gym when a passer-by said, "Are you waiting for a boy to lie down next to you?"

Benedict, who took the extraordinary step of meeting privately with victims during his April visit, compared the suffering of innocent clergy to "Christ in his Passion."

"We haven't spent enough time acknowledging the yeoman's' work the priests are doing," said Bishop William Lori of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn.

Bishop Gregory Aymond, chairman of the Committee for the Protection of Children & Young People, said bishops began mapping out the healing project more than a year ago. The talks are starting small, with prelates asking priests from different church regions for suggestions and information about the concerns of fellow clergy, said Aymond, of Austin, Tex.

Bishops said the troubles in the priest-bishop relationship vary from diocese to diocese, depending partly on how hard the scandal hit locally.

The discussions are taking place as church leaders prepare to review their national policy on preventing abuse and responding to molestation claims. The plan, called the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," will be re-evaluated in two years.

The National Review Board met earlier this week to start examining how they should conduct the reappraisal, Merz said.

It was clear Thursday that the situation for accused priests would be a key part of the process. Under the bishops' plan, developed in 2002 at the height of the crisis, guilty clergy are either barred from all church work or, if the Vatican permits, ousted from the priesthood.

However, the policy doesn't address how dioceses should monitor and house the accused clerics who are prohibited from working but remain priests. Bishops have struggled with that responsibility, and some victims say children remain vulnerable to the men as a result.

But many priests have complained that the bishops' current plan, adopted under intense public pressure, unfairly requires the same penalties for all clergy, without regard for the individual circumstances.

Merz said the bishops' new attention to priests in no way signals a return to old attitudes, when some church leaders stopped investigating abuse claims if an accused of clergyman denied any wrongdoing.

"It's not a matter of protecting priests," said Merz, who is a victim of sex abuse. "It's a matter of repairing the relationship."

The bishops are scheduled to adopt a statement outlining Catholic opposition to embryonic stem cell research before ending the public part of their meeting Friday morning.


Saturday, June 07, 2008

Finally, A Priest With a Backbone

If only all of our priests would be as consistent as the priest mentioned below in their defense of the sanctity of the Eucharist. A priest has a right and, more so, duty to ensure that the Eucharist is received by those who are readily prepared.

For anyone who participates in any way in abortion (and this includes voting, for it is through our votes that public officials get into office and make the policies that determine whether millions will live or die) shall not receive Eucharist, for abortion is a mortal sin, and to persist in mortal sin is to excommunicate oneself.

As Canon 915 declares, "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."

May we pray for this priest's strength to stand again the attacks that inevitably will come, as well as for more priests to join the ranks of the faithful and stand up for the truth of the Body,

“My Obama-heresy”

Catholic law professor who endorsed Obama talks to national press about California incident in which he was denied communion

An April incident in which a priest denied communion to Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec at a Mass for the Ventura/LA North chapter of Legatus, a group made up of well-to-do Catholics in business, has made it onto the pages of the Washington Post.

Kmiec, a former legal counsel to presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and who once served as dean of the law school at the Catholic University of America, stunned many of his Catholic colleagues in March when he endorsed Barack Obama for president in an article written for Slate magazine.

On April 18, less than a month after Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama appeared on the pages of Slate, an unnamed college chaplain refused to give him communion at the Legatus meeting. “Kmiec said Catholic bloggers told him he had excommunicated himself for supporting Obama,” wrote syndicated religion columnist Cary McMullen on May 24, citing a Kmiec essay elsewhere on the Internet. “Then, at a Mass before a dinner at which Kmiec was to speak, he said, ‘a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.’”

On June 3, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne joined the fray with a piece entitled, “For an 'Obamacon,' Communion Denied.” ‘Obamacon’ is a phrase coined to describe conservatives who support Obama.

“Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion,” wrote Dionne. “His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.”

Dionne described the Kmiec incident as “the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?”

Kmiec, says Dionne, “is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.”

Kmiec told Dionne: "To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith."

According to Dionne, Kmiec told him the name of the priest who refused to give him communion, but asked that he not be named “to protect the cleric from public attack.” And, although the column did not name the group Legatus, Dionne said Kmiec showed him “a letter of apology from the organizers of the event.”

Friday, June 06, 2008

"People--Now That's the Real Problem"

This is just another example of how Satan uses his subtle lies to try to destroy humanity. Yes, it is a good thing to take care of our resources, for we do only have one earth. But the big caveat to this whole "Green Movement" is that the world was made for people, not the other way around. We are the ones who the world was created.

How this whole mentality has blown out of proportion was that there is a severe lack of trust in God as Father and provider. We think that b/c so many of our own fathers were not present, then Our Father in Heaven will not take care of us. We have to control, grasp, and manipulate, because no one is going to defend us. What is this? It's called original sin, repackaged, re-marketed so that our focus is taken off of God and onto us. But guess what? Having the world but no relationship with God won't satisfy us.

I hope you enjoy the following two articles. May we pray for Al Gore and all of his cronies, so that they may come to know the truth, realizing that we really do live under friendly skies, and that if we follow His ways, the environment will be just fine.

Czech President's 'Inconvenient Challenge' To Al Gore
By Christopher G. Adamo
May 29, 2008

Since leaving office, former Vice-President Al Gore has gained enormous stature within certain circles on the world scene, acquiring it per the standard liberal formula. Taking up his "Earth in the Balance" cause, he produced the feature length movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which is replete with fantastic prophesies of doom for the planet unless America immediately regresses to third-world squalor.

An insipid and unsubstantiated piece of propaganda, Gore's movie would never have resonated beyond the boundaries of a few egg headed film fests, were it not for the concerted efforts of virtually every liberal and socialist special interest known to mankind. Coming to his aid, they collectively proclaimed "An Inconvenient Truth" to be at once the scientific equivalent of Einstein's theory of relativity, packaged in cinematic genius that eclipses Ben Hur.

In the typical modus operandi of liberalism, an avalanche of recognition and awards were conferred upon Gore and his movie, from the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to an Oscar for "Best Documentary" to effusive accolades from every aspiring tinseltown movie critic. The film, along with all of his efforts to foment a global warming panic, have since been predictably declared as universal truth, a judgment based not on the availability of evidence, but on the profusion of like-minded liberal ideologues who are willing to accept and advance his hysterical claims.

Not surprising was the immediate branding of any who are dubious of Gore's outlandish assertions as "heretics." The liberal agenda, whether in relation to planetary catastrophe or the latest effort to confiscate and redistribute the private property of citizens, cannot tolerate honest examination. Thus, any effort to demand scientific evidence to support Gore's frenzied allegations will result in immediate charges of being a "global warming denier," an obvious attempt to link the honest skeptic to those anti-Semites who claim the Nazi holocaust never happened.

Sadly, far too many on the political scene who should recognize the "global warming" alarmism as the transparent power play that it is, instead choose to seek safe haven by accepting the premise of cataclysmic man-induced climate destruction. Others, hearing constant warnings of impending disaster, may actually be impressed by their shrillness and intensity, and thus prone to believe them.

In any case, a veritable ideological "stampede" is presently taking place, which threatens to undercut every aspect of American industry and commerce, thereby reducing the standard of living for all Americans. The exorbitant cost of gasoline and impending extinction of the incandescent light bulb are merely the first harbingers of a general degradation of modern civilization if the situation indeed remains unchecked, with much worse to follow.

All is not yet lost however. A steadily growing number of brave souls are rising up to challenge the legitimacy of Gore's assertions, despite the certainty that they will be derided and castigated throughout the media, and in virtually all major "educational" institutions. Among the most notable of these challengers is Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

In stark contrast to the pampered elitists of Western Academia, or their Hollywood and D.C. minions, Klaus has endured decades of deprivation in Soviet dominated Czechoslovakia. Thus he has seen, first hand the hardship and suffering possible under the iron fist of unrestrained governing institutions who have no regard for the common citizen except as a mere "resource" to be exploited for the good of the state.

During that time, he personally witnessed the denial of basic freedoms and sustenance to the people, while those in key positions of government enjoyed relative plenty. In many ways, what he saw was a sorry likeness of the hypocrisy among "climate change" movement leaders, as they regularly fly around the world in their private jets while issuing calls for more meager lifestyles among lesser people.

Recognizing the potential menace of the current situation and how liberals are exploiting it, Klaus has boldly challenged Gore to an open debate on the entire topic of "climate change." Knowing that the tenets of his "green religion" cannot withstand intense scrutiny, it is a challenge that Gore cannot afford to accept.

As the title of Klaus's book underscores, the question is not one of dangers to the climate, but of threats to the freedoms and well-being of average citizens. And though the theories of "global warming" are merely open-ended speculation, with time tables continually rolled back since the looming atmospheric upheavals never seem to keep pace with those dire forecasts, the encroachment on basic freedom and liberty is indeed progressing on schedule.

With unassailable insight, Klaus properly characterizes the moral arrogance of the global warming advocacy, again likening it to the ravages of communism with which he was so painfully familiar. At a national press club gathering last week, he compared the two sinister ideologies, sternly warning that "Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the Marxists or the proletariat. This time, in the name of the planet."

To the degree that the major media and liberal political machine take notice of President Klaus and his effort, it will undoubtedly be only to demean and undermine him. Yet as someone who understands the consequences of allowing a monster of this nature to grow unchecked he continues his fight, grimly confident in the knowledge of what awaits western civilization if the "global warming" apostles ever gain the power which they crave.


Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (, an e-commerce business that markets products exclusively made in America. His contact information and archives can be found at


Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.


- Catholic Exchange - -

They’re Back: As Gas Prices Soar, The Population Controllers Once Again Blame People

Posted By Steven W. Mosher On June 5, 2008 @ 1:00 am In Today |

Recent crises have reenergized the population control movement. Worried about food shortages? Reduce the number of babies born, its advocates argue. Concerned about global warming? Contracept or sterilize more women. Want to bring down gas prices? Promote abortion around the globe. As “Going Green” columnist Bryan Walsh puts it in the latest issue of Time magazine (June 2, 2008), “Population is the essential multiplier for any number of human ills.”

Not so long ago, the population controllers would have been embarrassed to openly promote such ideas. After all, they have cried wolf so many times that most sensible people have stopped listening. The movement’s leading prophet of doom and gloom, Paul Ehrlich, has been repeatedly and utterly wrong. His 1968 jeremiad, The Population Bomb, warned that, with the earth approaching its carrying capacity, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. Instead, the estimated 6.66 billion people alive today live longer, eat better, and have higher living standards than ever before. Even Walsh has to admit that the “green revolution has vastly increased food production, while [Western trade and investment] have helped lift hundreds of millions in the developing world out of poverty.”

Another reason for their self-conscious silence was the massive human rights abuses that occurred in forced-pace programs. Supported, encouraged, and funded by Western governments, developing world dictatorships embarked upon programs that mandated contraception, sterilization, and even abortion for millions of women. China’s notorious one-child per couple policy is only the best known of dozens of programs that have violated the right of couples to determine for themselves the number and spacing of their children.

Now, however, the population-control minded environmentalists are back, and in full cry. Walsh, for example, blames the sudden spike in food and fuel prices on too many people, arguing that “if we can’t curb carbon emissions in a world of 6.8 billion [these guys always exaggerate the numbers], it may be impossible to do when there are 9 billion of us.” Leaving aside the question of whether we should control carbon dioxide — a trace gas on which all life on earth depends — blaming global warming on too many babies is the twisted logic of a profoundly misanthropic mind. How much carbon dioxide we produce is a result of how much fossil fuel we burn, not how many children are born. Nuclear power, for example, produces zero carbon dioxide.

Repeating the mistakes of his mentors in the population control movement, many of Walsh’s assertions are simply wrong. For example, his claim that “while population growth has slowed drastically in many countries in Western Europe and in Japan, where women are having fewer and fewer babies, it’s still rising in much of the developing world” is demographic nonsense. Birthrates are falling everywhere, not just in “Western Europe and Japan.” Europe as a whole — not just “Western Europe” — is losing population from year to year. Latin America is not far behind, and even Asia is averaging only 2.4 children per woman — and falling. The only region that still enjoys robust fertility is sub-Saharan Africa, most of whose countries, however, are plagued with HIV/AIDS, which is reducing population growth. Population growth everywhere is slowing, not rising, and the population of the world will probably peak before mid-century. In other words, what we are seeing is not a population bomb, but a population bust, with serious consequences for the whole realm of human endeavors.

Despite all this, Walsh and other like-minded environmentalists are determined to ratchet the birth rate down further, but how? He gently reproves “state-mandated birth control” as “essentially unfair.” Unfair?!? The Indonesian women who a few years ago were rounded up at gunpoint and sterilized might have difficulty with that weak characterization, not to mention the millions of Chinese women who are forcibly aborted each year.

Leaving that point aside, Walsh argues that “the key to limiting population growth… is to give control over procreation to women.” This assumes that women in the developing world are eager to follow their “sisters” in Hollywood and Manhattan down the road to “liberation” from childbearing (and from marriage, for that matter.) In fact, many women in the developing world (and in the U.S. as well) express a desire for more children than they are able to have, not fewer. And, as far as their health needs are concerned, they want access to clean drinking water, medicine and nutritional supplements, not handouts of birth control pills. Does Walsh truly believe that woman in the developing world will be rioting on the docks if they don’t receive their monthly shipments of contraceptives from the U.S.?

Meeting the real health needs of women in the developing world would mean funding primary health care for women and their families. Instead, the controllers ignore the views of women, view their fertility as a threat, and act to neutralize that perceived threat by disabling their reproductive systems. To paraphrase feminist Angela Franks, if women’s fertility is causing social, economic, environmental, or health problems, as the controllers believe, and if women refuse to acknowledge this reality, it is for the greater good that they be persuaded, or compelled, or forced to stop having children. Kingsley Davis and other population alarmists have long said that it is necessary, in the interest of reducing population growth, to make it less pleasant for women to do what so many of them enjoy doing, namely, raising children.[1] [i]

Still, population control organizations find it highly inconvenient that their programs are not greeted with joy by their “targets,” and they go to great lengths to disguise or explain away this fact. Overseas, they work overtime to create the impression of robust popular and government support for their anti-natal programs, recruiting local surrogates, suborning government ministries of health and education, launching media blitzes, and sponsoring contraceptive giveaways. This façade falls away in discussions with donors, in which they arrogantly suggest that the women’s reluctance to contracept comes about because they either don’t know their own minds, or because they simply don’t know what’s good for them (or their country, or the environment, etc.). To the American public, they sell a different line, that women overseas have an urgent, pressing “unmet need” for contraceptives.

Walsh is ultimately not concerned about women at all, as his last paragraph reveals. If Americans don’t influence their government to push contraception, he writes, “they may find out very soon just what the limits of the earth are. It’s not just feminism to support population control — it’s environmentalism.”

He sounds a little bit like Paul Ehrlich after all, doesn’t he?

Article printed from Catholic Exchange:

URL to article:

Copyright © 2008 Catholic Exchange. All rights reserved.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Truth About Obama

For so long, the Pro-Life Movement (or those who are involved, anyway) had been freaking out about Hilliary Clinton running for president. They had been hoping and praying for her defeat, so that a pro-life president would be elected. For what is at stake in this election is nothing less than the control of the Supreme Court for the next 35 years.

Well, now Hillary is gone (unless she becomes a running mate) and we are left with Obamination. I have seen this coming for some time now, and Barak Obama is by far a fiercer opponent. How can I say that? Well, with Hillary, we know what we're going to get: a radical feminist, wanna-be-broken-male, bent on the domination of America to control the world. Her marriage is most likely simply a facade, only being preserved due to the hope of political gain (for although we as Americans approve of divorce, we don't like to see it in our political leaders, b/c it speaks the language of "if you can't take care of your own marriage, how are you going to run the country?" Her teeth were completely bared, using every means possible to try to get elected.

Obama is different because here is a man who is a true sophist, someone who says a lot of words but really doesn't say anything. He has firmly established the cult of personality, not running on principles but simply on his rock-star status. He is most certainly charismatic and he has the fainting women (ha!) to prove it (his rally's remind me more of Tom Jones concerts than political meetings--I'm just waiting for someone to throw a pair of 42" panties at him).

While he is very much for "Change," the one thing we can be sure will not change is the fate of the unborn if he is elected. In being such a smooth talker, what many forget is that the lives of millions of children are in the balance, and the pro-life movement is pretty much sleeping right now. They are not screaming bloody murder, but instead are more interested in preserving the status quo.

I am certainly not saying McCain is the perfect candidate, nor that I am endorsing him, but a Christian, let alone a Catholic, can NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA. As John Paul the Great said, "A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope." Well time is running out, and if we continue to allow the slaughter of the innocent we will have hell to pay....and Obama to thank.

Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama

by Steven Ertelt Editor
June 4
, 2008

Washington, DC ( -- A spokeswoman for a leading pro-life group says pro-life advocates need to begin work today to stop likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Karen Cross, the political director for National Right to Life, says Obama would advocate abortion at every turn if elected president.

"Senator Barack Obama has a strong position and voting record in favor of abortion on demand," Cross told "He strongly supports the appointment of only U.S. Supreme Court Justices who favor Roe v. Wade."

That means Obama would ensure legalized abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy will remain legal in the U.S. for another 35 years, Cross says.

"If Senator Barack Obama becomes president of the United States, hundreds of thousands more unborn children will likely die each year," Cross warns.

Cross points to a speech Obama made before Planned Parenthood in 2007 promising to sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act that would make the Roe decision federal law.

She tells the bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again."

Obama's pro-abortion position is so absolute, the Right to Life leader explains, his position is even more extreme than that of Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival who he appeared to finally vanquish on Tuesday.

"As a state senator, Barack Obama even voted against saving the lives of babies who survive late term abortions," Cross says.

That's a reference to two bills in the Illinois legislature that Obama helped defeat that would have made sure babies who survive failed abortions receive appropriate medical care following their birth.

While Obama has voted against parental notification on abortion and for mandating that taxpayers pay for abortions, Cross say presidential candidate John McCain's record on abortion is a sharp contrast.

"Senator John McCain has a solid voting record against abortion and has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997," Cross explains. "He has also voted against endorsing Roe v. Wade and believes it should be overturned. In addition he voted to confirm Justices Alito and Roberts."

Because the abortion contrast is so strong between the two candidates, National Right to Life issued an endorsement for the Arizona senator

"National Right to Life PAC strongly supports Senator John McCain for United States President and we have supported him in all of his U.S. Senate races," Cross said.

Pro-life advocates have had concerns with McCain on the issue of embryonic stem cell research funding but they point out that Obama also favors federal funding. That makes abortion the key issue.

While her group has had disagreements with McCain on that bioethics topic, "Senator McCain did not waver in his votes against abortion," Cross confirmed.

"The choice for president is clear," Cross concludes.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Obsenity--Planned Parenthood Style

$336 Million. That's a lot of potatoes. Especially if you consider that's how much money tax-payers gave to Planned Parenthood last year. Every single dime is blood money, as they are the world's largest suppliers of abortions. They believe that dismembering small children is a medical procedure and that we should pay for it.

Michelle Malkin raises a really interesting point that if the Republican Party is going to win the next election, they are going to have to take a much stronger stance against the abortion industry. They are watering down their principles, the same principles that Ronald Reagan built the Republican Party. May some sense of sanity be restored back to the only party remaining with some semblance of why life is worth living.

Planned Parenthood's Obscene Profits
By Michelle Malkin
June 4, 2008

GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democratic presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere -- and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax -- that's not what bothers me -- but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."

Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about the oil industry?

In April, the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion -- with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? In 2006 alone: 289,750 abortions.

Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception and deadly windfall.

In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.

In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman instructed the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.

Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Orrin Hatch spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket, with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?

And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?

Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."

For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business -- and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits," indeed.


Michelle Malkin is author of "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." Her e-mail address is



Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Standing Up for Truth

Well, I'm really psyched about the fact that our evangelical brothers and sisters and standing up against the homosexual onslaught. It's pretty impressive, seeing as though they are definitely being assaulted by the media. Unfortunately, without re-establishing the link between love and life, reaffirming the Christian doctrine that contraceptives are immoral, they will not have the logical reasoning ability to argue against homosexuality (in a nutshell, if a person can have sex without the possibility of getting pregnant (which is the promise of contraceptives), then why can't two men have sex, and while they're at it, call it a marriage? That's why we're losing). To simply say "B/c the Bible says it is wrong" does not work in a world that has rejected the Gospel.

But I still applaud them for standing up for the truth. Now if only they could get TOB into their language...

Foreplay or Rough Sex with Evangelicals

by Harry R. Jackson Jr.


The next two Sundays, a coalition of radical gay groups comprised of SoulForce, The National Black Justice Coalition, and Equality Riders have coerced two of the nation’s most influential leaders into a closed-door showdown. Two of these groups (Soulforce and Equality Riders) are known for civil disobedience - even getting arrested in the name of GLBT justice. Bill Hybels at Willow Creek Community Church and Rick Warren at Saddleback Community Church will meet with these folks on June 8 and 15, respectively. Although Hybels and Warren will undoubtedly defend the faith boldly, SoulForce and company have set up a symbolic media campaign designed to suggest that conservative churches are bending on their gay relationships and marriage prohibitions.
The gay community is revving up its engines for an all out push to “mainstream” gays in three phases of life - marriage, politics, and religion. In some ways their “civil rights” agenda could make them even more equal than others. Research shows that gays are more highly educated and earn more money than other Americans. Therefore, gays have come out of the closet and are taking leadership in many areas of American culture. For these reasons, it is difficult for me, as an African American, to buy into their continual comparison with the civil rights movement and the struggles of African Americans. Their sense of cultural rejection is becoming less and less of a reality. In fact, the “velvet mafia,” as they are called in the entertainment industry, has won many battles in the so-called “culture wars.”
Let me be a little more specific. The militant gay minority has waged a war for recognition on four fronts:
1. The PR and image front – portraying gays as the boy or girl next door.
2. The legal front – fighting in the courts.
3. The educational/ generational front - introducing kids to their way of life at earlier and earlier ages.
4. The religious front – attempting to change the foundational beliefs of the Christian church and ordaining openly gay ministers.
The most difficult target for them on the religious front has been biblically conservative churches. For example on Thursday May 1, 2008, 300 people protested the United Methodist Church's General Conference ruling that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible" with Christian teaching. The group demonstrated “peacefully” by stopping the conference proceedings for 15 minutes and singing the hymn “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?”
Compared to the demonstration of 200 gay rights supporters in Cleveland at the General Conference eight years ago, the 2008 outburst seemed mild. Nonetheless, there is the tone of intimidation in the tactics of pro-gay religious activists.
With this kind of history, you can understand that when I first learned that the American Family Outing was planning to visit my church in the Washington, DC area, I assumed that they could picket my church or harass my members.
While their letters and discourse promised civility, we believed that the invitation carried a veiled threat of picketing or disruption if we did not “talk.” Because of our church’s activism in religious freedom disputes, I have received death threats and intimidating e-mails and phone calls from individual gay activists. In light of this history, our church had a feeling akin to those of US leaders who have to decide whether or not to negotiate with terrorists.
Two Saturdays ago (May 24) the radical gay rights group, SoulForce, showed up at our church in Beltsville, MD for a “discussion/debate ” with our pastors. The next day their group of gay “families,” including children, attended one of our worship services. The group of 31 kept their word to act respectfully this time.
So why did they come to our church along with TD Jakes’ Potter’s House, Eddie Long’s New Birth Community Church, and Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church? And why are they going to Willow Creek Community Church and Saddleback Community Church? The answer is simple. Their goal is to force us to accept their lifestyle by slowly desensitizing us to their aberrant theology and practices. This change in tactics is an attempt to play the pity card.
During the next ten years, I predict that gays will attempt to invade the conventional, Bible believing church. They realize that their plan will not affect the current evangelical movement very much. On the other hand, they can set the stage to mainstream gays into membership at the average Baptist or even Pentecostal church.
It is no accident that this American Family Outing began the week before the landmark gay marriage decision came down from the Supreme Court of California. The ruling, which declared that same sex marriage is a constitutional right for citizens of that state, overturned Proposition 22 - the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Proposition 22 was passed in 2000 by 61% of the voters of the state. It made this declaration: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Although the mainstream media has played down the California ruling and New York Governor Patterson’s promise to honor gay marriage from other jurisdictions in New York, a battle about the marital status and rights of gays is undoubtedly about to occur. I expect a grassroots, political tug of war similar to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Evangelicals, be prepared for things to get rough.

Here it Comes, America

Looking at the state of the union in Canada, it is no wonder why they are in trouble. Any country in the history of the world that espouses homosexuality (look at Ancient Rome and Greece, for example) is soon found on the ash-heap of history. The widespread institutionalization of homosexuality hasn't happened here yet, but should the voters of California fail to defend marriage as that union between one man and one woman, Christians will be persecuted for spreading the truth about love.

There's bad and good news to this: The bad news is: for standing up for our beliefs, Christians will be persecuted and most likely arrested for hate speech. The good news is, when I'm thrown in the slammer with all the other Christians, I won't have to worry about being sodomized. So it's a mixed bag, and in fact, probably a blessing, for it is from the martyrs that the Church is born anew.

CHRC Spokesman Will Not Say if Christian Teaching on Sexuality is “Hate”

June 3rd, 2008 by LifeSite News ·Print ·ShareThis

A spokesman for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has refused to say whether Christian moral opposition to homosexual activity constitutes a “hate crime”.Pete Vere, a Catholic writer who has been working on the clashes between the Human Rights Commissions and Christians, asked Mark van Dusen, a media spokesman for the CHRC, “If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

Van Dusen replied, “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere, we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties.”

Currently, two Christian organizations have Human Rights Commission complaints leveled at them for their outspoken defense, one in the political realm and the other in print, of the meaning of natural marriage and Christian sexual morality.

Homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint last February with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in which he accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. The commission is investigating a similar case initiated by Wells against the Christian Heritage Party, a political party co-founded by pro-life Catholics and Protestants. The party holds that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman.

Vere quoted Father Alphonse de Valk, the founder and editor of Catholic Insight, in an article on Zenit Catholic news agency. Fr. de Valk said that Catholic Insight “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He noted that some of the statements that allegedly promoted hatred and contempt against homosexuals were taken from recent Vatican pronouncements.

The issue before the CHRC, therefore, is whether Christian and Catholic teaching itself is considered under Canadian law to be “hate speech”.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary said the issue is whether Christians can continue to maintain their freedom of religious expression. Bishop Henry has also been through an Alberta HRC complaint by homosexual activists in 2005 after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year.

“I really feel that we are into a crisis situation here where we are experiencing a trumping of religious freedom,” said Bishop Henry.

Despite assurance from politicians that Canadian faith communities would not be affected when the government legalized same-sex marriage, the number of complaints against Christians have significantly increased since 2005.

Bishop Henry feels that Canada’s human rights tribunals are censoring the expression of traditional Christian teaching: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

This article is courtesy of

Why We Need Responsibility

Not to say that kids eating toys is hilarious, but the way this is written certainly makes it so. He raises some great points about how we need parents to step up and actually be parents.

This Toy is so Fun, I Think I'll Eat it!

Posted by Bobby Eberle
June 3, 2008 at 6:15 am

>> Printer-Friendly Version

Blame, blame, blame, and more blame... that seems to be the process these days when an "accident" occurs. It's always someone else's fault. Blame the big corporation... blame the restaurant... blame someone else. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's own actions? Did it ever occur to these people that if you do something stupid, the consequences are no one else's fault?

A perfect example of this "blame everyone else" mentality occurred recently in Indiana where an 8-year-old girl swallowed 20 steel balls and several other magnets from a Magnetix toy set. Now, the parents are blaming the toymaker and working on getting the toy "out of the schools and off the shelves." Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to simply not eat your toys?

Don't get me wrong... what happened to the girl is not funny. According to the story on FOX News, the girl "was taken to the emergency room for stomach pains, and an X-ray revealed the force from the magnets had torn her intestines in eight places." As the doctors said, she is lucky to be alive.

The point, however, is that she was not skipping down a path and a steel ball just happened to slide down her throat. She was not distracted by the evil steel ball leader while the others jumped into her stomach. She ATE HER TOY! And now what's happening? The parents want to go after the toy company because it's the company's fault. Sound familiar?

The news story says the family "plans to meet soon with an investigator from the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to discuss ways to keep other children safe." Discuss ways to keep children safe from this toy? Is there a wave of steel ball attacks going around?

What really caught my eye about this story is that just last night while watching television, I was playing Magnetix with my 6-year-old son. He loves it, and we are actually planning to expand the set. We built some spinning diamonds and then he made a huge pyramid. At no point did he think that he should eat the pyramid.

On the front of the container is a large warning stating, "CHOKING HAZARD - Small parts. Toy contains a small bar. Not for children under 3 years." Another label on the container states, "CAUTION: Do not ingest or inhale magnets. Attraction of magnets in the body may cause serious injury and require immediate medical care."

From the web site, we have the picture on the left. So, not only was a steel ball eaten, but then another one was, and another, and another, and another... And the parents want the toymaker to remove the product from toy stores? If a child is going to eat a toy, doesn't that potentially make any toy dangerous? What about Magic Sand? The label says do not swallow. So, if a child eats it, should we remove it from the stores too? What if my son eats his Darth Vader action figure with accompanying light saber? Do we blame the dark side of the force?

There is a quote on the right side of the page which says that the toy's parts "looked like candy" to her. She is 8 years old! These aren't Skittles... they are steel balls.

If people would just sit down with their kids and explain that toys should be used for education and entertainment and not for nourishment, we could save a whole lot of money on lawyer bills. Unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as it used to be. I feel sorry for the girl, but it is not the toymaker's fault.