Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Pelosi won’t watch Planned Parenthood videos, but is SURE they’re fake

original article: Pelosi won’t watch Planned Parenthood videos, but is SURE they’re fake
September 27, 2015 by Carmine Sabia

Listening to Nancy Pelosi speak is like watching somebody’s mouth fall down the stairs.

On Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the House minority leader if she had watched the undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress that show Planned Parenthood officials engaging in the sale of the body parts of aborted babies.

As usual, nimble Nancy sidestepped the question.

“I don’t stipulate that these videos are real,” she said, in the stilted, lawyer talk commonly used by people named Clinton and other liars. “No I haven’t seen…I’ve seen some news reports of it, but I also know that some of it is not real and you can create any reality that you want.

“I think they [the Center for Medical Progress] should be investigated. As to how they obtained those and doctored those and had them be accepted as something that was an indictment against Planned Parenthood, because that’s not true.”

Tapper did his best to make Pelosi look like a human as he reached for any reason she might be angry at Planned Parenthood officials — even if only for the fact that they allowed themselves to get caught — but Pelosi, appearing well-rehearsed, just handed him more gibberish.

“I think that Planned Parenthood has excellent leadership. Cecile Richards, the president, is a spectacular leader in our country,” she said. “I do think that Planned Parenthood is many people that consist of many state organizations and some of them not as, how shall I say, aware of the assault that was going to be made on them and they spoke in a way that could be misinterpreted.”

Pelosi hasn’t watched the videos, but she’s sure they’re fake, and the party she wants investigated are the people who produced them. The people actually selling the dismembered lungs and hearts of infants destroyed in their mothers’ wombs? They’re the kind of “excellent leadership” America is pining for.

Hey, Nancy,  you have to watch them first to see what’s in them. Sound familiar?

Social media blasted the former House speaker. (see full article)

abortion, bias, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elitism, government, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal

Advertisements

Filed under: abortion, bias, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elitism, government, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, patriotism, political correctness, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal

College student’s op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter movement stirs controversy

original article: College student’s op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter movement stirs controversy
September 25, 2015 by Fox News

An Iraq War veteran has found himself in a First Amendment battle after taking on the Black Lives Matter movement in his role as a college newspaper columnist.

Bryan Stascavage, a 30-year-old Wesleyan University student who served two tours in Iraq, penned an op-ed in the school newspaper that criticized the Black Lives Matter movement for creating an environment he believes advocates violence by spreading anti-cop hatred, and questioned the movement’s legitimacy.

“Is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive?” Stascavage wrote in his op-ed, “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” published Sept. 14 in the Wesleyan Argus.

“It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same,” Stascavage wrote.

“Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?” he questioned.

He said that certain actions by the movement’s extremists — like calling for more “pig” police officers to “fry like bacon” — should be condemned by the movement’s leaders.

The opinion piece unleashed a firestorm of criticism, first directed at Stascavage and later at the school newspaper and its editors. Stascavage said he’s been called a racist by students on campus, while some activists are calling on the school’s student government to defund the newspaper.

A petition demanding the Wesleyan Argus lose funding unless it meets certain demands has signatures from at least 172 students, staff and recent alumni. Signatories threatened to boycott the paper because they said it fails to “provide a safe space for the voices of students of color and we are doubtful that it will in the future.”

The university administration, meanwhile, defended Stascavage’s right to free speech over the weekend.

“Debates can raise intense emotions, but that doesn’t mean that we should demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable,” Wesleyan University President Michael Roth wrote in a blog post along with Provost Joyce Jacobsen and Vice-President for Equity and Inclusion, Antonio Farias.

“As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended,” said the post, titled “Black Lives Matter and So Does Free Speech.”

“We certainly have no right to harass people because we don’t like their views,” the administration said. “Censorship diminishes true diversity of thinking; vigorous debate enlivens and instructs.”

Stascavage, a sophomore majoring in philosophy and political science at the Connecticut university, said he knew his column would be controversial for posing “uncomfortable questions,” but said he never believed it would “hit nerves to the extent that it has.”

“The whole point of the article was to encourage people to think of alternative ways to get the Black Lives Matter movement to communicate their message effectively, instead of destroying a downtown district and screaming, ‘We want change,'” Stascavage told FoxNews.com Thursday.

“They are painting the police with a broad stroke as being racist killers,” he said. “I don’t agree with cheering when a police officer is killed. The rhetoric is starting to slide from a political movement to this mob mentality that leads us down a bad path.”

Stascavage, who has penned about 20 pieces for the school newspaper since his freshman year, claims editors at the newspaper said nothing to him prior to the op-ed’s publication.

After the backlash, however, editors-in-chief Rebecca Brill and Tess Morganissued a lengthy statement apologizing “for the distress the piece caused the student body.”

“The op-ed cites inaccurate statistics and twists facts,” the two wrote. “As Wesleyan’s student newspaper, it is our responsibility to provide our readership with accurate information. We vow to raise our standards of journalism and to fact-check questionable information cited in articles, including those in the Opinion section, prior to publication.”

Neither Brill nor Morgan returned messages seeking comment Thursday. Stascavage said the editors-in-chief have yet to speak to him about the piece in question.

“I was very disappointed,” Stascavage said of their statement. “It looked like they just threw me under the bus.”

Brill and Morgan noted, however, that “The Opinion section is open to any writer who wants to share a view, whether or not the Opinion editors and the editors-in-chief agree with it.”

“While we strive to make articles as coherent as possible before publication, we edit opinions for style rather than content, even if they are unpopular, controversial, and widely contested,” they said.

Stascavage, who plans to continue writing for the paper, said the ordeal has proved a valuable learning experience.

“I have learned more in the past 10 days than I learned in three years of college,” he told FoxNews.com. “Freedom of speech is critical for democracy.”

bias, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal

ACLU targets Louisiana high school

original article: ACLU targeting Louisiana school over educator’s ‘God Bless You’ greeting
September 27, 2015 by Fox News

The ACLU of Louisiana is accusing a high school of promoting Christianity in an open letter on Friday because a student group hung prayer boxes and the principal ended an online letter with “May God Bless You All.”

Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said in a letter published by the Shreveport Times that Airline High School violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by allowing the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to set up prayer boxes that feature “Christian Symbols.” Esman’s letter also noted Principal Jason Rowland closed a September 2015 message to the school’s website with “The Future Starts Today – May God Bless You All.”

“The United States Constitution requires public schools to ensure that state-supported activity is not used for religious indoctrination,” the letter, which was addressed to superintendent D.C. Machen, states. It alleges that Rowland also “encouraged students to ‘pray to the Almighty God.’”

No official action will occur until the school board meets on Oct.1, but the claims addressed in the letter have already been placed on the meeting’s agenda, according to the Shreveport Times.

“In the meantime, please understand that the Bossier Parish School System enjoys an established record of achievement,” a statement from Parish spokeswoman Sonja Bailes said. “Such success is due in large part to the fact that, as in this case, the system respects both the law and the religious beliefs of all its students and employees.”

While school officials are holding their tongues for the time being, other state groups and officials have begun speaking out.

Louisiana State Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City, has offered free legal services to the Parish and Rowland, according to the Times.

“This is typical of the ACLU,” he said. “They’re on a seek-and-destroy mission for all things religious.”

He added: “I hope the school will stand its ground.”

Freedom Guard, a non-profit public interest law firm, has also offered free legal defense to Airline High School, according to KSLA.

Airline High School is in Bossier City, which lies east of Red River, about 3 miles from Shreveport.

abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, christian, discrimination, diversity, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy

Filed under: abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, christian, discrimination, diversity, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy

Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida

original article: Say Goodbye to Bride and Groom in Florida
September 28, 2015 by Michael Brown

N. T. Wright is one of the most world’s foremost New Testament scholars, a sober-minded man not given to extreme rhetoric. Yet when it came to the question of redefining marriage, Wright did not hold back, explaining how dangerous it is to change the fundamental meaning of words:

“When anybody—pressure groups, governments, civilizations—suddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out. If you go to a German dictionary and just open at random, you may well see several German words which have a little square bracket saying ‘N.S.,’ meaning National Socialist or Nazi. The Nazis gave those words a certain meaning. In post-1917 Russia, there were whole categories of people who were called “former persons,” because by the Communist diktat they had ceased to be relevant for the state, and once you call them former persons it was extremely easy to ship them off somewhere and have them killed.”

He continued, “It’s like a government voting that black should be white. Sorry, you can vote that if you like, you can pass it by a total majority, but it isn’t actually going to change the reality.”

That’s why I have often said that once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

It would be like saying a couple can now consist of five people, or a pair can refer to one item, or a tricycle can have two wheels.

Redefining those terms doesn’t change reality, and when it comes to marriage, if you don’t have the two essential components, namely a husband and a wife, you don’t have marriage.

Consequently, if you change the fundamental meaning of marriage, you change the meaning of husband and wife as well.

As I pointed out last year in an article entitled, “I Now Pronounce You Spouse and Spouse,” as England began to move towards redefining marriage, the Daily Telegraph reported that, “The word ‘husband’ will in future be applied to women and the word ‘wife’ will refer to men, the Government has decided.”

According to John Bingham, “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses.”

In the government’s proposed guidelines, “‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman. In a similar way, ‘wife’ will include a woman married to another woman or a man married to a man.”

So, a man could be a wife if married to another man (or not), while a woman could be a husband if married to another woman (or not), all of which begs the question: Why use words at all if they have utterly lost their meaning? It’s like saying that up is down (or up) and down is up (or down), while north is south (or north) and south is north (or south).

In the same article, I cited the Huffington Post, which reported that “California’s same-sex couples may now be pronounced spouse and spouse after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill [last] Monday eliminating outdated ‘husband and wife’ references from state laws.”

Not surprisingly, according to California bill AB 1951, birth certificates will have three options: “mother,” “father,” or simply “parent,” meaning that, in the case of two lesbians, one could be designated “father,” while in the case of two gay men, one could be designated “mother.” (The bill would also allow for three parents to be listed on the birth certificate, since there’s obviously a missing third party in the event of two men or two women “having” a baby.)

This means that we’ve come to a place of semantic insanity, a place where you can have male wives, female husbands, male mothers, and female fathers.

Do people really think you can just turn the world upside down without having any adverse effects?

In keeping with this social madness, the state of Florida recently changed its marriage certificates, removing the terms “bride” and “groom” and replacing them with “spouse.”

This goes hand in hand with other international trends. As I pointed out in 2011, “In Ontario, Canada, as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage, all references to terms like husband, wife, and widow were removed from the law books in 2005. In Spain, birth certificates were changed from ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ to ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B.’”

But of course!

That’s why principle #4 in my new book is: Refuse to Redefine Marriage, since, to repeat, once you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

The Supreme Court can gives its ruling; laws can be passed; public opinion can shift and turn, but that doesn’t mean we have to affirm it, participate in it or, God forbid, celebrate it.

But all is not lost. True marriage – natural marriage, marriage the way God intended it from the beginning (see Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6) – will endure, while radically redefined marriage will undo itself.

I was reminded of this as I watched some baby dedications at a church service on Sunday, with the proud moms and dads holding their precious little ones in their arms: There’s no substitute for marriage and family the way God set it up, regardless of what Florida or California or England or Spain or Canada might say.

anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

Filed under: anti-religion, bias, bigotry, biology, bullies, bureaucracy, civil rights, culture, discrimination, diversity, extremism, family, freedom, government, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, law, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, religion, scandal, sex

First Amendment battle at Weslyan University

original article: College student’s op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter movement stirs controversy
September 25, 2015 by Fox News

An Iraq War veteran has found himself in a First Amendment battle after taking on the Black Lives Matter movement in his role as a college newspaper columnist.

Bryan Stascavage, a 30-year-old Wesleyan University student who served two tours in Iraq, penned an op-ed in the school newspaper that criticized the Black Lives Matter movement for creating an environment he believes advocates violence by spreading anti-cop hatred, and questioned the movement’s legitimacy.

“Is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive?” Stascavage wrote in his op-ed, “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” published Sept. 14 in the Wesleyan Argus.

“It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same,” Stascavage wrote.

“Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?” he questioned.

He said that certain actions by the movement’s extremists — like calling for more “pig” police officers to “fry like bacon” — should be condemned by the movement’s leaders.

“As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended.”

– Wesleyan University President Michael Roth

The opinion piece unleashed a firestorm of criticism, first directed at Stascavage and later at the school newspaper and its editors. Stascavage said he’s been called a racist by students on campus, while some activists are calling on the school’s student government to defund the newspaper.

A petition demanding the Wesleyan Argus lose funding unless it meets certain demands has signatures from at least 172 students, staff and recent alumni. Signatories threatened to boycott the paper because they said it fails to “provide a safe space for the voices of students of color and we are doubtful that it will in the future.”

The university administration, meanwhile, defended Stascavage’s right to free speech over the weekend.

“Debates can raise intense emotions, but that doesn’t mean that we should demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable,” Wesleyan University President Michael Roth wrote in a blog post along with Provost Joyce Jacobsen and Vice-President for Equity and Inclusion, Antonio Farias.

“As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended,” said the post, titled “Black Lives Matter and So Does Free Speech.”

“We certainly have no right to harass people because we don’t like their views,” the administration said. “Censorship diminishes true diversity of thinking; vigorous debate enlivens and instructs.”

Stascavage, a sophomore majoring in philosophy and political science at the Connecticut university, said he knew his column would be controversial for posing “uncomfortable questions,” but said he never believed it would “hit nerves to the extent that it has.”

“The whole point of the article was to encourage people to think of alternative ways to get the Black Lives Matter movement to communicate their message effectively, instead of destroying a downtown district and screaming, ‘We want change,'” Stascavage told FoxNews.com Thursday.

“They are painting the police with a broad stroke as being racist killers,” he said. “I don’t agree with cheering when a police officer is killed. The rhetoric is starting to slide from a political movement to this mob mentality that leads us down a bad path.”

Stascavage, who has penned about 20 pieces for the school newspaper since his freshman year, claims editors at the newspaper said nothing to him prior to the op-ed’s publication.

After the backlash, however, editors-in-chief Rebecca Brill and Tess Morganissued a lengthy statement apologizing “for the distress the piece caused the student body.”

“The op-ed cites inaccurate statistics and twists facts,” the two wrote. “As Wesleyan’s student newspaper, it is our responsibility to provide our readership with accurate information. We vow to raise our standards of journalism and to fact-check questionable information cited in articles, including those in the Opinion section, prior to publication.”

Neither Brill nor Morgan returned messages seeking comment Thursday. Stascavage said the editors-in-chief have yet to speak to him about the piece in question.

“I was very disappointed,” Stascavage said of their statement. “It looked like they just threw me under the bus.”

Brill and Morgan noted, however, that “The Opinion section is open to any writer who wants to share a view, whether or not the Opinion editors and the editors-in-chief agree with it.”

“While we strive to make articles as coherent as possible before publication, we edit opinions for style rather than content, even if they are unpopular, controversial, and widely contested,” they said.

Stascavage, who plans to continue writing for the paper, said the ordeal has proved a valuable learning experience.

“I have learned more in the past 10 days than I learned in three years of college,” he told FoxNews.com. “Freedom of speech is critical for democracy.”

bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, extremism, first amendment, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, opinion, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, scandal, victimization

Filed under: bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, extremism, first amendment, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, opinion, political correctness, progressive, public policy, relativism, scandal, victimization

Does Hillary Clinton know about Protestants?

Let’s see if you can follow the logic. First, Catholics are supposed to oppose abortion and birth control. Second, many Republicans oppose abortion. Therefore Republicans oppose birth control or all Republicans are Catholic.

If you see a flaw in that reasoning you may be capable of independent thought, in which case you can see through Hillary Clinton’s glib propaganda in defense of Planned Parenthood. It’s not even artful propaganda. It’s shallow, mindless drivel offered by a supposedly smart woman in an attempt to turn the tables on Republicans in light of the recent scandal Planned Parenthood found itself in. To defend Planned Parenthood and to help deflect attention away from the astonishing undercover videos, Mrs. Clinton is trying to help her liberal base make logical connections that make no sense whatsoever. If she can suggest all Republicans oppose birth control I can suggest she doesn’t know Protestants exist.

original article: Hillary Clinton Again Defends Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies, Lies About Pro-Lifers
September 23, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

Abortion advocate Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the tables on the pro-life Republican presidential candidates who have gone after her for defending Planned Parenthood even after it was caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. Now, Clinton is trying to go on offense by making false claims that they oppose contraception.

Clinton recently had a long interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board in which she dismissed and refused to answer questions about how Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby body parts.

“I will continue to defend Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraceptive testing for HIV AIDS.

“The Republican have made it clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which they have been for quite some time. They’re increasingly opposed to family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not a penny of federal money.

“The money they want to cut off…is money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in defense of Planned Parenthood.”

Never mind that not only do pro-life Republicans support contraception they have pushed to support the sale of non-abortifacient birth control over the counter. Clinton’s claim that pro-life republicans oppose birth control is patently false — as polling data showsRepublicans support contraception.

Clinton ignores the 10 videos showing Planned Parenthood apparently violating multiple federal laws in order to maximize the profit it makes selling aborted babies and their body parts.

She also ignores Planned Parenthood’s own figures showing it doing more and more abortions. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its 2013 annual report and the new numbers indicate it did more abortions than the year before — killing 327,653 babies in abortions while taking in millions in taxpayer funds.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America  released its 2013-2014 Annual Report and Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, broke down the numbers.The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.

While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.

“Despite this lack of increase in its primary business, Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money,” Sedlak said. “It has such a tremendous publicity machine that it convinced corporate and private donors to increase donations by more than $75 million (from $315.4 million to $391.8 million).”

“The increased donations, plus an increase of $28 million in “other operating revenue” and the reduction in costs from closing clinics, led to a near-record $127.1 million in profits for the largest abortion chain in the nation. This was the second highest reported annual profit in Planned Parenthood’s history,” he explained to LifeNews.

Some other takeaways from Planned Parenthood’s own figures:

  • In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.
  • For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.
  • While abortions rose, Planned Parenthood adoption referrals dropped 14% in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4%.
  • Planned Parenthood’s cancer prevention services are down 17% over one year, and contraceptive services dropped by 4%.
  • During fiscal year 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding, or more than $1.4 million per day, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements.
  • Taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.

While it did more abortions, Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive business declined from 3,724.558 customers in 2012 to 3,577,348 customers in 2013.

abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Pro-Abortion Students at American U. Tear Down Pro-Life Fliers

original article: Pro-Abortion Students Tear Down Pro-Life Fliers, Take Pictures Bragging About the Vandalism
September 24, 2015 by KRISTAN HAWKINS

The #WomenBetrayed National Day of Student Action has had its first vandalism case. This one is at American University in Washington, DC, where flyers AU Justice League – Ripping Down Fliers (2)exposing Planned Parenthood were posted around campus late last night and then subsequently torn down and mocked on social media by the liberals on campus (tolerance? yeah right).

Planned Parenthood is terrified of pro-life students on college campuses because that’s where the base of their clientele are at. They and their allies will do everything they can to stop the pro-life message from reaching students, even resorting to vandalism and destruction. It’s thanks to courageous pro-life students, like those at American University, who are fearless in the face of injustice and will fight to make sure their message is heard loud and clear that Planned Parenthood betrays women and their babies.

We’ll let Tristan Justice, a freshman at AU, tell us what happened:

I am a freshman here at American University studying communications, law, economics, and government. I am an active participant in the College Republicans and am bringing in projects for the group to participate in such as the Women Betrayed National Day of Action.

Last night at 10 PM, I rallied together a few college republicans to put up pro-life fliers around campus in preparation for the Women Betrayed National Day of Action. However, the posters did not last long, as another student group known as the “AU Justice League” tore them down just hours later and tweeted “We had some fun with the collegAU Pro-life Fliers (2)e republican posters tonight. Let us know if we missed any guys!” with a picture of the torn down posters crumpled together with what appears to be someone’s middle finger pointed at them. I went to bed shortly after we were done posting the fliers around campus but woke up this morning and saw the tweet mentioned by another college republican.

This is a classic example of liberal intolerance occurring on college campuses. The posters were not even up overnight until the left decided they were offended by them and tore them down. It goes to show that when the left is challenged, they respond with intolerance.

aujusticeleague2

abortion, abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, discrimination, education, free speech, hypocrisy, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pro-life, progressive, prolife

Filed under: abortion, abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, discrimination, education, free speech, hypocrisy, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pro-life, progressive, prolife

Pope’s Challenge to Protect Life Instantly Dismissed

original article: Pope’s Challenge to Protect Life Instantly Dismissed
September 24, 2015 by Kimberly Ross

The Pope was in town today, if you didn’t know, but the drooling dropped jaws of the Left probably tipped you off. As the country has been preparing for the papal visit, we’ve been subjected to channels such as CNN essentially turning into EWTN. Suddenly the Pope is revered, and Catholic teaching, most of it anyway, should be seriously considered, albeit briefly. The Pope’s speech before Congress was everything a social justice-leaning Pope would present to the leaders of a nation, complete with remarks about the environment, abolition of the death penalty, and coming together for the common good. You will see these remarks replayed over and over, and there is plenty of “good” in his statements. But there is one remark which will not be logically connected to the greatest sin of this generation. The sin of abortion. As Pope Francis said:

Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

Naturally, “every stage of its development” refers to life from the very beginning – conception – through to the end. While Pope Francis did not use the term “abortion” in his speech before Congress, he has spoken out against it by including the “innocent victim of abortion” in the list of those needing our protection, and determining “It is wrong, then, to look the other way or to remain silent”. This conflicts with those such as cowardly House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 16%, a pro-choice Catholic, who was recently quoted in a New York Times article: “The church has their position, and we have ours, which is that a woman has free will given to her by God”.

The dust had barely settled on media coverage of the Pope’s visit to DC when news outlets began to carry articles of Carly Fiorina’s visit to the ultrasound room of a pregnancy center. CNN‘s headline to the story? “Carly Fiorina trashes Planned Parenthood at South Carolina pregnancy center”. That’s odd, since about five minutes before that they were squealing with delight at the Pope’s speech.

The article opened…

Carly Fiorina took her attacks on Planned Parenthood to the ultrasound room of an alternative pregnancy center in the heart of the Bible Belt on Thursday morning.

“Wow, that shot of the spine is amazing. Look how well developed it is,” she remarked as she observed images of the 18-week fetus.

And the “trashing” the article refers to? Just this:

When Fiorina paced its narrow hallways, staff and pregnant women asked her to “stand for life” and “fight back.”

In between questions about soon-to-be-born child’s names, Fiorina pledged to do just that.

“The character of this nation cannot be about butchery of babies for body parts,” she told supporters in the foyer. “(Liberals) are perfectly prepared to destroy other people’s jobs and livelihoods and communities in order to protect fish and frogs and flies, but they do not think a 17-week-old, a 20-week-old, a 24-week old (baby) is worth saving.”

The lives worth saving, as mentioned by Fiorina, are the same exact lives that Pope Francis mentioned, but Carly is branded as trashing a women’s “health” organization, while the Pope as a whole is praised. How pale the “convictions” of the Left are, and how fleeting. CNN has done an excellent job at showing how absolutely limp the media is, as well as those who heard the Pope’s morning declarations in person, the members of Congress.

Of any two images that show the stark contrast between life and those who applaud its demise, these two pictures, tweeted close to one another, capture that reality.

popevisit

Liberals, both in the media and in Congress, quickly celebrated the Pope’s visit, and, just as quickly, ignored certain challenges that even dared to infringe on their political agenda. The most basic of rights is the right to life, and any desire to do good in this world must hinge on protecting that right. What good is a United States of America if we seek to use natural resources wisely, all the while destroying our most precious gift; the unborn? What good is encouraging the next generation to combat the evils of terrorism if we federally fund legal homicide? What good is celebrating the words of Pope Francis if they are glossed over one minute later while reviewing presidential candidate Carly Fiorina’s stop at a pregnancy center?

With the Pope’s visit to Congress, the Left again showed their true colors. Not only is the representative of Catholicism celebrated and fawned over by those who routinely mock faith, but they give weight to just a portion of what he says for fear that the rest might destroy their own concrete “convictions”. I, for one, am not fooled by their paper-thin ideologies which dismiss the thing we should hold most dear.

abortion, babies, bias, congress, cover up, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: abortion, babies, bias, congress, cover up, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing

original article: Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 10 Without Their Parents Knowing
September 13, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

After a LifeNews expose’ about how a high school in Seattle, Washington is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control in young girls and doing so without parental knowledge or permission, the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a request for additional public record to a better idea about the situation.

The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as anabortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit,Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance.

Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. Other Washington state schools are also taking part in the program.

Now, Judicial Watch has obtained documentation of the extent of the program giving girls birth control and IUDs without their parents knowing. The group released a statementwith additional information:

JW filed a public records request with the Washington Health Care Authority after reading a disturbing article in a pro-life news site over the summer about a Seattle high school that offers different forms of birth control without parental knowledge or consent. This includes implanting an intrauterine device (IUD) in a girl’s uterus free of cost. It’s part of an initiative offered by Medicaid, the joint federal and state insurance program for the poor. The article points out the irony that a teen in Seattle can’t get a sugary soft drink in high school but can have a device implanted into her uterus.

The data obtained by JW reflect increasing numbers of kids in all age groups receiving these birth control implants from 2013 to 2014. Figures can’t be compared for 2015 because the full year’s data is not yet available, but the records show that in 2014 and at least part of 2015, girls as young as 10 received the implants. The largest group of minors that got the birth control implants was 17 years old, according to the data, but girls much younger also received them.

Four 11-year-olds got birth control from the state during the 2 ½- year period and so did more than 100 girls between the ages of 12 and 13. The numbers go up as the girls get older with 364 girls age 14 getting the implants and 744 15-year-olds. The records show that 2,336 girls ages 16 to 17 were given implants during this period.

While the government maintains records about the number of young girls given birth control without their parents’ knowledge or consent, it appears government officials failed to follow up with the girls about the health problem or complications they faced afterwards. As Judicial Watch indicated:

JW also asked the Washington State agency for records involving the number of adverse health events reported for girls who had received the implants during those years, but no data was produced. Evidently, the state isn’t tracking the negative health consequences from administering the implants in young girls. As part of the investigation JW also requested a breakdown of girls that got parental consent and those who didn’t, but the state evidently doesn’t keep track and no records were produced.

This seems to be part of a trend among some states to offer children highly questionable medical care without getting permission from a parent

Parents of young girls in Washington State should be aware of what is taking place and parents of girls in other states should begin asking questions as well.

abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

Filed under: abortion, children, corruption, culture, education, extremism, family, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, progressive, public policy, scandal, sex

Liberal Hate 101: The double standard in social media

original article: Liberal Hate 101: The double standard in social media
September 23, 2105 by PHIL ELMORE

His name is C.J. Pearson. At the age of 12, this Georgia student has racked up over a million views on the video sharing site YouTube. His video is popular because in it he criticizes His Holiness, Glorious Leader Barack Obama. Now, criticizing Barack Obama normally makes one a racist – immediately and incontrovertibly. C.J. Parsons, however, is black, so allegation of racism were perhaps not quite as swiftly hurled as they might otherwise be when the sacred cow that is Barry The One is gored.

Liberals, incidentally, love allegations of racism specifically or, more generally, hatred. They love to equate any and all criticism of them, their beliefs and the changes they wish to make within society – most of which are self-destructive and harmful – as “hatred.” If they can marginalize all conservative thought as “hate,” as “insensitive,” as bad or wrong on its face, they can effectively silence all opinions that do not jibe with their own. That is precisely what is happening.

Well, C.J. Pearson has had his Facebook account locked for his criticism. He isn’t the first. Rumors that Facebook routinely suspends conservative groups’ and individuals’ pages have persisted for some time now. Just recently, yet another account created by the pro-veteran website “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” was suspended by Facebook because the owner shared a meme critical of Muslims.

Across social media, conservatives are routinely shouted down, shut up, silenced, suspended and banned not because they have broken the rules, but because the opinions they hold are wrongfully deemed “hate.” It’s no secret that the folks who run the major social media sites – Facebook and Twitter among them – are left of center. You should not, therefore, be surprised when your own accounts are locked down. Meanwhile, left-wingers can make as many threats and post as much personal information about you as they like.

I will use myself as an example – twice. I am a conservative. As such, when it comes to online harassment, there is utterly no recourse for me when it comes to any subjective matter of content policing. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is what it is regardless of your political affiliation (and thus when my content is stolen online I can sometimes seek legal redress), most of the time when I am threatened, harassed, or otherwise treated on social media in ways that violate those platforms’ terms of service, there is nothing I can do.

Previously, I have written about an unctuous little liberal troll who, like so many of his ilk, spends all of his time on social media attacking conservatives. The fact that people like this fellow often have bizarre personal proclivities (which they happily share online) is not as irrelevant as it first might seem. Most far-left radicals, most of the lefties who spend their days obsessing over the fact that conservatives exist and refuse to shut up, are themselves freaks of one kind or another. Freaks hate to be judged. They hate it when you tell them you disapprove. To a hyper-political freak, the lack of affirmation is an act of deliberate hatred. It is no longer withholding your approval; it is, in the minds of social media operatives like this, an active affront to them.

As a result, it is nearly impossible for me to use social media without cretins like this chiming in. I am by no means alone. Conservatives, especially politically vocal conservatives, must contend with nasty comments all the time. Female conservatives also get plentiful rape threats. The army of liberal trolls runs the show – and they know management supports them, not us.

Whenever a conservative dares to speak to one of these creatures, he runs the risk of having his own account shut down. I have watched with a kind of fascinated horror as one liberal troll, whose Twitter timeline is exclusively devoted to hating a single person (me), has reported at least half a dozen accounts of people who dared to criticize him. Every one of those critics has been suspended for comments that in no way violate Twitter’s user guidelines. Yet the troll, because he is a liberal, remains. Every time I report his harassment, I am told (even though Twitter claims to be taking a harder line toward harassing behavior) that they can find no violation of their community standards. They have stopped even acknowledging the reports.

Just last week on Twitter, I shared a blog post by an independent author of whom I’d never heard. That author became very offended that I did so – probably because I pointed out, in sharing his blog post about the mistakes independent authors make, that the paperback copy of his own book ironically does not hold a high ranking. He took to his blog and then to Facebook and Twitter to ask, with abundant profanity, who I thought I was, before proceeding to attack me in every conceivable way short of soliciting my murder. The reason? Well, the author is a liberal and a “social justice” whiner who hates conservatives. In his mind, that is enough to justify elaborately condemning me, anyone I care about, the guy who painted my house once and anyone who may have once walked past me on the street. Predictably, nothing about his post “violates Facebook’s community standards.” Imagine that.

Mind you, I am not complaining. You can’t be a politically active libertarian or conservative if liberal hatred upsets you. I have lost no sleep over this. I have not had my own accounts suspended, nor have I had any of my posts censored. But I have watched for month after month, year after year, as political liberals are able to get away with behavior that would swiftly earn a suspension or ban for anyone who believes as I do. That includes you, if you are reading this.

This double standard is part of the social media landscape. If you are a conservative and you wish to express your political beliefs online, you must understand that you, too, face this uphill battle. You should still express what you believe. Just don’t be surprised when the rules that apply to you don’t necessarily apply to everyone.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Pages

Categories

September 2015
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930