Take a look at this outstanding column by a very thoughtful political analyst, Michael Barone of The Washington Examiner. The whole article is good, but this paragraph in particular caught my attention:
"'Follow the money,' Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public-employee unions -- who in turn spend much of that money on politics [$400 million in 2008 alone], almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic party."
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Disgusting Commentary on our Universities
A war hero who was awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in Iraq and who spent two years in the hospital recovering from his wounds was booed and heckled when he spoke at a townhall meeting at Columbia University last week in favor of allowing the ROTC back on campus to recruit. Story here. These students don't deserve to have the freedom they enjoy in this great country, thanks to heroes like Sgt. Anthony Maschek. And what a sad, disgusting commentary on the left-wing teachers and professors who have shaped the worldviews of these kids.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Planned Parenthood Defunding Passes the House
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Contrast Couldn't Be Clearer...
...between those who are real leaders and those who aren't. Definitely in the "not a real leader" category is Barack Obama. His cowardly budget continues the big domestic spending while completely ignoring the massive problem of entitlements which threatens our country with bankruptcy. Charles Krauthammer has a lot more details in his great column here.
In the "real leader" category are two tough, courageous governors: Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Both of these men are real leaders who taking the painful steps necessary to fix their states' financial problems, all the while being honest with their constituents about what's at stake. Peggy Noonan has a lot more details in her great column here.
In the "real leader" category are two tough, courageous governors: Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Both of these men are real leaders who taking the painful steps necessary to fix their states' financial problems, all the while being honest with their constituents about what's at stake. Peggy Noonan has a lot more details in her great column here.
Thoughts on the Wisconsin Showdown
As most of you know, there's a showdown going on in Wisconsin, with protestors jamming the state capitol to protest a plan by the new Republican legislature to cut public employee benefits in order to attempt to balance the state's budget. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
1. You'd think, from reading the protestors' signs comparing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler and hearing union bosses call him the "Mubarak of the Midwest", that he and his allies in the state legislature were pushing something really radical. What they are actually proposing is for public employees to pay 12.6% of their health insurance instead of less than 5%. (Is there ANYBODY who works in the private sector who gets their employer to pay 87.4% or more of their health insurance???) Oh yeah, and they have to pay half of their pension contributions (as opposed to 0% now). I know, I know, can you believe those evil politicians asking public employees to contribute some money toward their own retirement? I mean it's not like non-government employees have to save for their own retirement or anything.
The bill also restricts the power of the unions in other ways. It keeps unions from forcing state employees to pay union dues. And it ends collective bargaining for public employee unions for everything except for wages (with the exception of police & fire), which means that benefit increases would be restricted to the CPI. The reason for this is quite simple. State and local government union employees make, on average, 45% more in total compensation than similar employees working in the private sector. Thanks to collective bargaining, public employee compensation (usually disguised as increased non-wage benefits) has continued to increase significantly despite the dismal economic conditions. Over the past few years, public-sector employment in Wisconsin has continued to increase while private-sector employment decreased. And unfortunately, Wisconsin simply can't afford to pay for it anymore. The state faces a $3.6 billion budget deficit over the next two years. Why shouldn't the unions have to tighten their belt like the rest of us?
Rich Lowry of National Review put it like this: "Walker's reforms, though, go beyond the immediate bottom line. They are aimed at curtailing the power of public-sector unions that feast on the circularity of their relationship with government. The unions work to elect politicians, then sit across a bargaining table from them -- and lo and behold, get what they want." This circular relationship is a big reason why so many states are going bankrupt.
2. The tactics of Big Labor, as always, are appalling. Teachers are walking off their jobs and shutting down schools to attend the protests (bringing their students with them in many cases). I wish I could get the taxpayers to foot the bill for ME to walk of my job to engage in days of political protests. As mentioned before, the governor is being compared to Hitler and Mubarak for having the cheek to try to balance the budget. The protestors have surrounded the capitol, waving vicious signs and shouting vicious things. Republican legislators are getting physical threats against them, and some of them have been forced to get police protection for their homes, businesses, and families. Unionists have actually targeted some of those homes and businesses for protests. They are trying to bully and scare state legislators into doing what they want. It's despicable. And give the Republicans credit for not backing down, at least so far. The behavior of the unions demonstrates just how corrupt and entitled they are and just how badly they need to be reined in.
Jay Nordlinger, as always, has some great thoughts on National Review. He writes, "A great advantage of the Left is that they are organized and determined -- and have a lot of time. Paid time. The taxpayer is funding these 'days of protest,' engaged in by the public-school teachers. They are using their 'sick' leave, provided by the taxpayer, to go rallying. And what are the other citizens of Wisconsin - the majority - doing? What they always do. Going about their business, or businesses; providing for their families. As we speak, some are having to stay home with their school-aged children, who have been locked out of their classrooms by their teachers. Ordinary Wisconsites aren't paid to go rallying in the capital. Besides, they 'ralled' at the polls last November. They had their say then. And now, Governor Walker and the rest are trying to conduct the people's business." Nordlinger also quotes a columnist from a local newspaper saying that union leaders "must figure that if they bring 13,000 shouting people to Madison, they can overrule the election."
3. Speaking of attempting to overrule the election. The Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature have disappeared. Yes, that's right, disappeared. They walked out of the capitol and literally left the state, driving to a hotel in Illinois. This forced the legislature to postpone the vote because there was not a quorum present. Unbelievable. You don't like what the majority of legislators -- democratically elected legislators -- are doing, so you just leave town and shut down the legislature completely. Yes, this is how Democrats operate. They act like two-year-olds and throw a little temper tantrum. What would happen to our system of government if the minority party left town every time the majority tried to pass a bill they didn't like? For the millionth time, Democrats demonstrate why they deserve to be a permanent minority.
1. You'd think, from reading the protestors' signs comparing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler and hearing union bosses call him the "Mubarak of the Midwest", that he and his allies in the state legislature were pushing something really radical. What they are actually proposing is for public employees to pay 12.6% of their health insurance instead of less than 5%. (Is there ANYBODY who works in the private sector who gets their employer to pay 87.4% or more of their health insurance???) Oh yeah, and they have to pay half of their pension contributions (as opposed to 0% now). I know, I know, can you believe those evil politicians asking public employees to contribute some money toward their own retirement? I mean it's not like non-government employees have to save for their own retirement or anything.
The bill also restricts the power of the unions in other ways. It keeps unions from forcing state employees to pay union dues. And it ends collective bargaining for public employee unions for everything except for wages (with the exception of police & fire), which means that benefit increases would be restricted to the CPI. The reason for this is quite simple. State and local government union employees make, on average, 45% more in total compensation than similar employees working in the private sector. Thanks to collective bargaining, public employee compensation (usually disguised as increased non-wage benefits) has continued to increase significantly despite the dismal economic conditions. Over the past few years, public-sector employment in Wisconsin has continued to increase while private-sector employment decreased. And unfortunately, Wisconsin simply can't afford to pay for it anymore. The state faces a $3.6 billion budget deficit over the next two years. Why shouldn't the unions have to tighten their belt like the rest of us?
Rich Lowry of National Review put it like this: "Walker's reforms, though, go beyond the immediate bottom line. They are aimed at curtailing the power of public-sector unions that feast on the circularity of their relationship with government. The unions work to elect politicians, then sit across a bargaining table from them -- and lo and behold, get what they want." This circular relationship is a big reason why so many states are going bankrupt.
2. The tactics of Big Labor, as always, are appalling. Teachers are walking off their jobs and shutting down schools to attend the protests (bringing their students with them in many cases). I wish I could get the taxpayers to foot the bill for ME to walk of my job to engage in days of political protests. As mentioned before, the governor is being compared to Hitler and Mubarak for having the cheek to try to balance the budget. The protestors have surrounded the capitol, waving vicious signs and shouting vicious things. Republican legislators are getting physical threats against them, and some of them have been forced to get police protection for their homes, businesses, and families. Unionists have actually targeted some of those homes and businesses for protests. They are trying to bully and scare state legislators into doing what they want. It's despicable. And give the Republicans credit for not backing down, at least so far. The behavior of the unions demonstrates just how corrupt and entitled they are and just how badly they need to be reined in.
Jay Nordlinger, as always, has some great thoughts on National Review. He writes, "A great advantage of the Left is that they are organized and determined -- and have a lot of time. Paid time. The taxpayer is funding these 'days of protest,' engaged in by the public-school teachers. They are using their 'sick' leave, provided by the taxpayer, to go rallying. And what are the other citizens of Wisconsin - the majority - doing? What they always do. Going about their business, or businesses; providing for their families. As we speak, some are having to stay home with their school-aged children, who have been locked out of their classrooms by their teachers. Ordinary Wisconsites aren't paid to go rallying in the capital. Besides, they 'ralled' at the polls last November. They had their say then. And now, Governor Walker and the rest are trying to conduct the people's business." Nordlinger also quotes a columnist from a local newspaper saying that union leaders "must figure that if they bring 13,000 shouting people to Madison, they can overrule the election."
3. Speaking of attempting to overrule the election. The Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature have disappeared. Yes, that's right, disappeared. They walked out of the capitol and literally left the state, driving to a hotel in Illinois. This forced the legislature to postpone the vote because there was not a quorum present. Unbelievable. You don't like what the majority of legislators -- democratically elected legislators -- are doing, so you just leave town and shut down the legislature completely. Yes, this is how Democrats operate. They act like two-year-olds and throw a little temper tantrum. What would happen to our system of government if the minority party left town every time the majority tried to pass a bill they didn't like? For the millionth time, Democrats demonstrate why they deserve to be a permanent minority.
Friday, February 11, 2011
"Planned Parenthood Is About Parenthood in the Same Way the American Cancer Society Is About Cancer"
All right, I can't take credit for the title above. Some Dude came up with that quote. I wish I had.
Take a look at this explosive column by Michelle Malkin. Needless to say, she doesn't hold back as she blows out of the water the claim that Planned Parenthood is an innocent organization that exists to help and care for women in need. A more accurate definition would be "an organization that assists in the exploitation of young teenaged women for big financial gains." If you think that's an extreme statement, read the article and watch the videos from Live Action Films. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars from federal and state governments. Your tax dollars are funding this organization, although if Republicans in the House have their way that will soon change.
Take a look at this explosive column by Michelle Malkin. Needless to say, she doesn't hold back as she blows out of the water the claim that Planned Parenthood is an innocent organization that exists to help and care for women in need. A more accurate definition would be "an organization that assists in the exploitation of young teenaged women for big financial gains." If you think that's an extreme statement, read the article and watch the videos from Live Action Films. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars from federal and state governments. Your tax dollars are funding this organization, although if Republicans in the House have their way that will soon change.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Boom-Bust Cycle Explained
Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo testified before a House subcommitee yesterday. Although Congress likely isn't listening, I thought his explanation of the boom-bust cycle was too good to pass over. The text of his testimony is below. It's a bit long, but I hope you can read to the end. Unfortunately many people do not have a good understanding of the economics behind our monetary system, including many politicians.
________________________
Testimony of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
Professor of Economics, Loyola University Maryland
Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2128 Rayburn House Office Building
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of today’s hearing: "Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?" Since I am an academic economist, you will not be surprised to learn that I believe that the correct answer to this question is: "yes and no." Monetary policy under the direction of the Federal Reserve has a history of creating and destroying jobs. The reason for this is that the Fed, like all other central banks, has always been a generator of boom-and-bust cycles in the economy. Why this is so is explained in three classic treatises in economics: Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises, and two treatises by Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek: Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle and Prices and Production. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1974 for this work. I will summarize the essence of this theory of the business cycle as plainly as I can.
When the Fed expands the money supply excessively it not only is prone to creating price inflation, but it also sows the seeds of recession or depression by artificially lowering interest rates, which can ignite a false or unsustainable "boom" period. Lower interest rates induce people to consume more and save less. But increased savings and the subsequent business investment that it finances is what fuels economic growth and job creation.
Lowered interest rates and wider availability of credit caused by the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy causes businesses to invest more in (mostly long-term) capital projects (primarily real estate in the latest boom-and-bust cycle), and there is an accompanying expansion of employment in those industries. But since the lower interest rates are caused by the Fed’s expansion of the money supply and not an increase in savings by the public (i.e., by the free market), businesses that have invested in long-term capital projects eventually discover that there is not enough consumer demand to justify their investments. (The reduced savings in the past means consumer demand is weaker in the future). This is when the "bust" occurs.
The economic damage done by the boom-and-bust policies of the Fed occur in the boom period when resources are misallocated in the ways described here. The "bust" period is actually a necessary cure for the economic miscalculations that have occurred, as businesses liquidate their unsound investments and begin to make decisions on realistic, market-based interest rates. Prices and wages must return to reality as well.
Government policies that bail out businesses that have made these bad investment decisions will only delay or prohibit economic recovery while encouraging more of such behavior in the future (the "moral hazard problem"). This is how short recessions can be turned into seemingly endless ones. Worse yet is for the Fed to create even more monetary inflation, rather than allowing the necessary economic adjustments to take place, which will eventually set off another boom-and-bust cycle.
As applied to today’s economic situation, it is obvious that the artificially low interest rates caused by the policies of the Greenspan Fed created an unsustainable boom in the housing market. Thousands of new jobs were in fact created – and then destroyed – giving an updated meaning to Joseph Schumpeter’s phrase "creative destruction." Many Americans who obtained jobs and pursued careers in housing construction and related industries realized that those jobs and careers were not sustainable after all; they were fooled by the Fed’s low interest rate policies. Thus, the Fed was not only responsible for causing the massive unemployment that we endure today, but also a great amount of what economists call "mismatch" unemployment. The skills that people in these industries developed were no longer in demand; they lost their jobs; and now they must retool and re-educate themselves.
The Fed has been generating boom-and-bust cycles from its inception in January of 1914. Total bank deposits more than doubled from 1914 to 1920 (partly because the Fed financed part of the American involvement in World War I) and created a false boom that turned to a bust with the Depression of 1920. GDP fell by 24% from 1920–1921, and the number of unemployed more than doubled, from 2.1 million to 4.9 million (See Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America). This was a more severe economic decline than was the first year of the Great Depression.
In America’s Great Depression economist Murray N. Rothbard demonstrated that, once again, it was the excessively expansionary monetary policy of the Fed – and of other central banks – that caused yet another boom-and-bust cycle that spawned the Great Depression. It was not the Fed’s subsequent restrictive monetary policy of 1929–1932 that was the problem, as Milton Friedman and others have argued, but its previous expansion. The Fed was therefore guilty of contributing greatly to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.
In summary, the Fed’s monetary policies tend to create temporary and unsustainable increases in employment while being the very engine of recession and depression that creates a much greater degree of job destruction and unemployment.
__________________________________
________________________
Testimony of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
Professor of Economics, Loyola University Maryland
Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2128 Rayburn House Office Building
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address the issue of today’s hearing: "Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?" Since I am an academic economist, you will not be surprised to learn that I believe that the correct answer to this question is: "yes and no." Monetary policy under the direction of the Federal Reserve has a history of creating and destroying jobs. The reason for this is that the Fed, like all other central banks, has always been a generator of boom-and-bust cycles in the economy. Why this is so is explained in three classic treatises in economics: Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises, and two treatises by Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek: Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle and Prices and Production. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 1974 for this work. I will summarize the essence of this theory of the business cycle as plainly as I can.
When the Fed expands the money supply excessively it not only is prone to creating price inflation, but it also sows the seeds of recession or depression by artificially lowering interest rates, which can ignite a false or unsustainable "boom" period. Lower interest rates induce people to consume more and save less. But increased savings and the subsequent business investment that it finances is what fuels economic growth and job creation.
Lowered interest rates and wider availability of credit caused by the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy causes businesses to invest more in (mostly long-term) capital projects (primarily real estate in the latest boom-and-bust cycle), and there is an accompanying expansion of employment in those industries. But since the lower interest rates are caused by the Fed’s expansion of the money supply and not an increase in savings by the public (i.e., by the free market), businesses that have invested in long-term capital projects eventually discover that there is not enough consumer demand to justify their investments. (The reduced savings in the past means consumer demand is weaker in the future). This is when the "bust" occurs.
The economic damage done by the boom-and-bust policies of the Fed occur in the boom period when resources are misallocated in the ways described here. The "bust" period is actually a necessary cure for the economic miscalculations that have occurred, as businesses liquidate their unsound investments and begin to make decisions on realistic, market-based interest rates. Prices and wages must return to reality as well.
Government policies that bail out businesses that have made these bad investment decisions will only delay or prohibit economic recovery while encouraging more of such behavior in the future (the "moral hazard problem"). This is how short recessions can be turned into seemingly endless ones. Worse yet is for the Fed to create even more monetary inflation, rather than allowing the necessary economic adjustments to take place, which will eventually set off another boom-and-bust cycle.
As applied to today’s economic situation, it is obvious that the artificially low interest rates caused by the policies of the Greenspan Fed created an unsustainable boom in the housing market. Thousands of new jobs were in fact created – and then destroyed – giving an updated meaning to Joseph Schumpeter’s phrase "creative destruction." Many Americans who obtained jobs and pursued careers in housing construction and related industries realized that those jobs and careers were not sustainable after all; they were fooled by the Fed’s low interest rate policies. Thus, the Fed was not only responsible for causing the massive unemployment that we endure today, but also a great amount of what economists call "mismatch" unemployment. The skills that people in these industries developed were no longer in demand; they lost their jobs; and now they must retool and re-educate themselves.
The Fed has been generating boom-and-bust cycles from its inception in January of 1914. Total bank deposits more than doubled from 1914 to 1920 (partly because the Fed financed part of the American involvement in World War I) and created a false boom that turned to a bust with the Depression of 1920. GDP fell by 24% from 1920–1921, and the number of unemployed more than doubled, from 2.1 million to 4.9 million (See Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America). This was a more severe economic decline than was the first year of the Great Depression.
In America’s Great Depression economist Murray N. Rothbard demonstrated that, once again, it was the excessively expansionary monetary policy of the Fed – and of other central banks – that caused yet another boom-and-bust cycle that spawned the Great Depression. It was not the Fed’s subsequent restrictive monetary policy of 1929–1932 that was the problem, as Milton Friedman and others have argued, but its previous expansion. The Fed was therefore guilty of contributing greatly to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.
In summary, the Fed’s monetary policies tend to create temporary and unsustainable increases in employment while being the very engine of recession and depression that creates a much greater degree of job destruction and unemployment.
__________________________________
Changing Hearts and Minds, One Life at a Time
As those of you who follow this blog know, the new "late-term abortion" (euphemism for killing viable babies) clinic in Germantown, Maryland, has been the focus of a lot of prayers and concern for those of us who post here. So far, I have been able to attend two prayer walks outside the clinic. Both of them were pretty well attended despite very cold and windy weather, and while the evil of what we are protesting weighs heavily on our hearts, it has been encouraging to gather with like-minded people and stand for the protection of life and for justice for those unable to defend themselves. It has also been encouraging to see some renewed energy in the state capitol in Annapolis for the pro-life cause. Several legislators are introducing legislation to stop late-term abortion in Maryland. With all the negative publicity surrounding Kermit Gosnell's baby butcher shop in Philadelphia, we are praying that more pro-choice legislators will take a closer look at what is going on in the abortion industry and decide to support reasonable restrictions on abortion late in the pregnancy.
I wanted to share a really encouraging story from our community that happened just this week. A group of pro-life people from the community have been holding a prayer vigil every Monday morning outside of the Germantown clinic. This Monday, a woman went into the clinic for a scheduled abortion. While she was inside, the group of about 90 was praying hard for her and her baby. A short time later, she came back outside and told them, "I knew the love was out here and not in there." She also said that the clinic was "disgusting and the people are mean in there." She talked with the pro-life group for awhile and ended up accompanying one of them to the Shady Grove Pregnancy Center, which exists to help women like her who feel like abortion is their only option.
This reminds me a lot of another story I heard from a friend at Grove City College some years ago. My friend had been part of a group of people praying outside the abortion clinic in Pittsburgh when a woman came up and starting talking with a priest who was part of the group. It turned out that the priest had been standing outside the clinic praying a couple of years earlier when she arrived to have an abortion. He spoke with her, but she decided to have her abortion anyway. Now, two years later, she was pregnant again, and she remembered that the priest had demonstrated genuine love and concern for her, while the employees at the clinic had been cold and uncaring. She came and found the priest and told him she didn't want to have another abortion and asked for his help.
Stories like these give me hope that our prayers, protests, and vigils are not in vain. It makes me joyful and thankful to God to hear of these examples where love won out, a baby's life was spared, and a pregnant woman was able to find help and support.
These stories also highlight the vast difference between the pro-life pregnancy centers and the pro-choice abortion centers. Both supposedly exist to help pregnant women, but the contrast could not be greater. The reason these women found the people in the abortion clinics to be cold and unfeeling is because they are doing it for money, pure and simple. Abortionists and abortion clinics make thousands of dollars for each abortion they perform -- it is a multi-million dollar industry. (Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood also get a lot of federal money.) Obviously, anyone working in such a place, given the horrible sights and sounds witnessed every day (like dead dismembered babies being delivered and thrown in the trash), has to detach themselves emotionally and get through the day by mechanically processing each woman who comes in the door. Pro-life pregnancy centers, by contrast, are funded purely by churches and charitable donations and almost all their staff are unpaid. The pregnancy centers exist and are staffed because people care about these women and babies and want to help them so much they are willing to freely give of their time and money. (Unlike the abortion providers, these centers get no government money and often get a lot of harrassment from government entities like Montgomery County, MD.)
I saw this same contrast at the last pro-life walk I attended in Germantown on Sanctity of Life Sunday (the anniversary of Roe v. Wade). The small group of pro-abortion protestors (many of whom apparently were not even from the community) were chanting things like "Pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die" and screaming hateful things and doing everything possible to disrupt our protest. In response to their chants, our group sang "Amazing Grace." They were angry because the police kept them on the other side of the street -- their whole purpose for being there was to get in our faces and disrupt our prayer walk. Yet I saw no one on our side respond with angry shouts. Any objective outside observers (such as people driving by and policemen directing traffic) had to see the contrast plainly.
We must, with God's help, keep up the fight, because those of us who stand for life are making a difference. And let's continue to love people -- because those stories I shared earlier are about how love won out over hatred and indifference. We will never win people's hearts and minds if we don't demonstrate with our words and actions that we really care for them.
I wanted to share a really encouraging story from our community that happened just this week. A group of pro-life people from the community have been holding a prayer vigil every Monday morning outside of the Germantown clinic. This Monday, a woman went into the clinic for a scheduled abortion. While she was inside, the group of about 90 was praying hard for her and her baby. A short time later, she came back outside and told them, "I knew the love was out here and not in there." She also said that the clinic was "disgusting and the people are mean in there." She talked with the pro-life group for awhile and ended up accompanying one of them to the Shady Grove Pregnancy Center, which exists to help women like her who feel like abortion is their only option.
This reminds me a lot of another story I heard from a friend at Grove City College some years ago. My friend had been part of a group of people praying outside the abortion clinic in Pittsburgh when a woman came up and starting talking with a priest who was part of the group. It turned out that the priest had been standing outside the clinic praying a couple of years earlier when she arrived to have an abortion. He spoke with her, but she decided to have her abortion anyway. Now, two years later, she was pregnant again, and she remembered that the priest had demonstrated genuine love and concern for her, while the employees at the clinic had been cold and uncaring. She came and found the priest and told him she didn't want to have another abortion and asked for his help.
Stories like these give me hope that our prayers, protests, and vigils are not in vain. It makes me joyful and thankful to God to hear of these examples where love won out, a baby's life was spared, and a pregnant woman was able to find help and support.
These stories also highlight the vast difference between the pro-life pregnancy centers and the pro-choice abortion centers. Both supposedly exist to help pregnant women, but the contrast could not be greater. The reason these women found the people in the abortion clinics to be cold and unfeeling is because they are doing it for money, pure and simple. Abortionists and abortion clinics make thousands of dollars for each abortion they perform -- it is a multi-million dollar industry. (Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood also get a lot of federal money.) Obviously, anyone working in such a place, given the horrible sights and sounds witnessed every day (like dead dismembered babies being delivered and thrown in the trash), has to detach themselves emotionally and get through the day by mechanically processing each woman who comes in the door. Pro-life pregnancy centers, by contrast, are funded purely by churches and charitable donations and almost all their staff are unpaid. The pregnancy centers exist and are staffed because people care about these women and babies and want to help them so much they are willing to freely give of their time and money. (Unlike the abortion providers, these centers get no government money and often get a lot of harrassment from government entities like Montgomery County, MD.)
I saw this same contrast at the last pro-life walk I attended in Germantown on Sanctity of Life Sunday (the anniversary of Roe v. Wade). The small group of pro-abortion protestors (many of whom apparently were not even from the community) were chanting things like "Pro-life, that's a lie, you don't care if women die" and screaming hateful things and doing everything possible to disrupt our protest. In response to their chants, our group sang "Amazing Grace." They were angry because the police kept them on the other side of the street -- their whole purpose for being there was to get in our faces and disrupt our prayer walk. Yet I saw no one on our side respond with angry shouts. Any objective outside observers (such as people driving by and policemen directing traffic) had to see the contrast plainly.
We must, with God's help, keep up the fight, because those of us who stand for life are making a difference. And let's continue to love people -- because those stories I shared earlier are about how love won out over hatred and indifference. We will never win people's hearts and minds if we don't demonstrate with our words and actions that we really care for them.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan!
Tomorrow, February 6, 2011, Ronald Reagan would have been 100 years old. Though not perfect, I believe Ronald Reagan was one of our greatest presidents, and certainly our greatest modern president. If only more of those politicians currently in office attempted to live up to the standard set by this man.
There are numerous favorable and unfavorable articles about this man popping up around the internet, but I found this one interesting. About the attempted shooting of President Reagan in his first term when Jim Brady was shot, it offers a brief look at what might have been.
There are numerous favorable and unfavorable articles about this man popping up around the internet, but I found this one interesting. About the attempted shooting of President Reagan in his first term when Jim Brady was shot, it offers a brief look at what might have been.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Sanctity of Life Week 2011
An abortionist in Philadelphia was charged last week for 8 murders (among other charges)- one overdosed woman patient and 7 babies who were born alive, only to have their spines severed using scissors. It is good to see that this monster is finally being brought to justice, after what appears to have been a serious lapse in oversight allowed him to continue practicing far far longer than he should have. The grand jury reports that the state department of health found gross violations as early as 1989 and failed to see they were corrected. How many lives could have been saved if the local government had been fulfilling its committment to the community? More details here.
I encourage you to view this amazing video (Facebook login not required). It is mind-boggling to me that someone could see these images and still call this a fetus and refuse to grant her personhood. Thankfully there are signs that the tide may be beginning to turn. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson's book Unplanned (according to an e-mail I received last week from Living Hope for Life) had sold out it's first run from the publisher the first day it was released, and was ranked #8 bestseller on Amazon.com and #3 at Barnes and Noble.
On Sunday there was a prayer walk outside the abortion clinic in Germantown, Maryland where Leroy Carhart is now performing late-term abortions. Though the news only reported "a few hundred," organizers counted about 600 atendees walking the block and praying for peaceful change. I was unfortunately prevented from being there by illness, but Natedawg was there and perhaps will be able to write an update at some point. Monday was the annual March for Life, on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is appalling how many years this holocaust has continued in our country.
For the Sunday walk in Germantown, organizers printed posters for atendees to carry. On one side in big letters it said "Pray for the Protection of Life" and on the other was a list of ten things to pray for during the 1.1 mile walk. At the top of that list was 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." May that be my prayer this week and going forth.
I encourage you to view this amazing video (Facebook login not required). It is mind-boggling to me that someone could see these images and still call this a fetus and refuse to grant her personhood. Thankfully there are signs that the tide may be beginning to turn. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson's book Unplanned (according to an e-mail I received last week from Living Hope for Life) had sold out it's first run from the publisher the first day it was released, and was ranked #8 bestseller on Amazon.com and #3 at Barnes and Noble.
On Sunday there was a prayer walk outside the abortion clinic in Germantown, Maryland where Leroy Carhart is now performing late-term abortions. Though the news only reported "a few hundred," organizers counted about 600 atendees walking the block and praying for peaceful change. I was unfortunately prevented from being there by illness, but Natedawg was there and perhaps will be able to write an update at some point. Monday was the annual March for Life, on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is appalling how many years this holocaust has continued in our country.
For the Sunday walk in Germantown, organizers printed posters for atendees to carry. On one side in big letters it said "Pray for the Protection of Life" and on the other was a list of ten things to pray for during the 1.1 mile walk. At the top of that list was 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." May that be my prayer this week and going forth.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Thoughts on the recent tragedy in Arizona
I'm a little late to the party. By now, thousands of bloggers have already weighed in on this issue, but I am going to comment anyway. If you have paid any attention to the news, then you are aware now that a nut shot several people outside a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll. Roll was killed in the attack, and Giffords is expected to make a recovery.
Predictably, some commentators immediately suggested that a member of the TEA party is responsible for the attacks. Sarah Palin was also implicated because of her infamous map of targeted Democrats. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are taking advantage of the occasion to talk about gun control.
Here are my thoughts on the passing scene...
Predictably, some commentators immediately suggested that a member of the TEA party is responsible for the attacks. Sarah Palin was also implicated because of her infamous map of targeted Democrats. Some lawmakers, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) are taking advantage of the occasion to talk about gun control.
Here are my thoughts on the passing scene...
- The attacks are a tragedy. This news does not make me happy. I do not wish for any harm to come to my ideological opponents in the Democrat party. All I want is for them to be defeated at the polls by large margins.
- The attacker, Jared Loughner, is not a conservative. He's not a liberal. He's a nut. He shot all those people because he's a nut, and that's what nuts do sometimes. Among his favorite books listed on his blog are Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and Atlas Shrugged. (Essentially, the free market manifesto. A rather odd juxtaposition, don't you think?) His acquaintances also think that he has a few screws loose.
- Gun control? Seriously? Do we really have to pass a new law every time something bad happens? And isn't it rather tacky to use a tragedy like this to push your pet cause?
- As for blaming Sarah Palin for the attacks...good...grief. Seriously? Some crosshairs on a map made a guy flip out and kill a bunch of people?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
I don't know about you, but I find this encouraging.
The 112th Congress is opening by reading the entire Constitution, something that the House has surprisingly never done before. They also approved new rules, including a requirement that all bills cite the Constitution.
House Speaker John Boehner: "Hard work and tough decisions will be required of the 112th Congress. No longer can we fall short. No longer can we kick the can down the road. The people voted to end business as usual and today we begin to carry out their instructions."
I fully realize that Republicans haven't always been much better than Democrats in following the Constitution. The Tea Party was hugely influential in the last election, however, and if the new Congress is listening to their constituents they will begin to change things in Washington. Here's hoping that this is a real, and lasting, change from "politics as usual."
House Speaker John Boehner: "Hard work and tough decisions will be required of the 112th Congress. No longer can we fall short. No longer can we kick the can down the road. The people voted to end business as usual and today we begin to carry out their instructions."
I fully realize that Republicans haven't always been much better than Democrats in following the Constitution. The Tea Party was hugely influential in the last election, however, and if the new Congress is listening to their constituents they will begin to change things in Washington. Here's hoping that this is a real, and lasting, change from "politics as usual."
Monday, January 3, 2011
Late Term Abortion
I just viewed this video from the pastor's lunch on December 15 and I strongly encourage you to do the same. In the video, Kelly Stauffer gives a compelling account of her own experience with late term abortion as a girl of 14. If you are interested in staying up to date on the Germantown clinic and abortions performed by Leroy Carhart, see Kick Out Carhart online. There are events scheduled for January 22 and 23 with details to be determined. I am personally praying for awareness (by citizens and legislators), peaceful outcry against these unspeakable practices, and most importantly for a change of heart for all involved.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Merry Christmas to all!
If you haven't seen it already (or even if you have) I encourage you to watch Charlie Brown Christmas. Here is my favorite part, with Linus on "what Christmas is all about." Can you believe they used to show this stuff on TV, and that it's still running today!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Food Safety Modernization Act
I had intended to write about this piece of legislation in a more timely fashion (shortly after it came up for vote in the Senate Thanksgiving week) but other things came up. Now I see that S. 510, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act, has passed the House and is heading to the President's desk. This occured in spite of consitutionality questions; since this legislation is considered revenue-generating it should have originated in the House, not in the Senate. The Complete Patient (also see previous posts) has written several posts with great analysis.
The bill is intended to bring food safety into the present after outbreaks of foodborn illness. In fact it greatly increases FDA oversight of farming and the food industry, and increases extremely burdensome regulations on food production. Senator Tom Coburn, who outspokenly opposed the bill, believes that the increased regulation would not actually make food safer. He said: "The problem with food safety is the agencies don't do what they're supposed to be doing now. They don't need more regulations. They need less." Sen. Coburn also objected to the cost of the new legislation, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates as a "negligible" $1.4 million over four years.
Originally there was a great deal of outcry (from the few who knew this bill existed) because the new regulations would apply to all food production regardless of size. Sen. John Tester proposed an amendment as a solution to this problem, exempting small farms and those who sell at farmer's markets. Though this appeared to be a solution for small farms, instead of simply exempting them it apparantly places the burden on the farmer to prove that he is exempt. It looks like the FDA could inspect any time it chose. It also appears that the legislation would resurrect the failed National Animal Identification System, which required farmers to register every animal owned. Farming is not a neat and tidy business that can be laid out on paper and expected to remain somewhat constant (is any business, really?). To require extensive records from any business is a huge imposition and only impedes that business' activity and progress. The farmer, depending on his operation, must either hire someone to do the additonal paperwork or do it himself. Either way this greatly reduces the efficiency of his resources and prevents his business from performing to the full extent of his capability. Greater oversight makes the system more cumbersome and will do nothing to keep the people safe.
The bill is intended to bring food safety into the present after outbreaks of foodborn illness. In fact it greatly increases FDA oversight of farming and the food industry, and increases extremely burdensome regulations on food production. Senator Tom Coburn, who outspokenly opposed the bill, believes that the increased regulation would not actually make food safer. He said: "The problem with food safety is the agencies don't do what they're supposed to be doing now. They don't need more regulations. They need less." Sen. Coburn also objected to the cost of the new legislation, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates as a "negligible" $1.4 million over four years.
Originally there was a great deal of outcry (from the few who knew this bill existed) because the new regulations would apply to all food production regardless of size. Sen. John Tester proposed an amendment as a solution to this problem, exempting small farms and those who sell at farmer's markets. Though this appeared to be a solution for small farms, instead of simply exempting them it apparantly places the burden on the farmer to prove that he is exempt. It looks like the FDA could inspect any time it chose. It also appears that the legislation would resurrect the failed National Animal Identification System, which required farmers to register every animal owned. Farming is not a neat and tidy business that can be laid out on paper and expected to remain somewhat constant (is any business, really?). To require extensive records from any business is a huge imposition and only impedes that business' activity and progress. The farmer, depending on his operation, must either hire someone to do the additonal paperwork or do it himself. Either way this greatly reduces the efficiency of his resources and prevents his business from performing to the full extent of his capability. Greater oversight makes the system more cumbersome and will do nothing to keep the people safe.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Dennis Prager Calls Out the Music Industry
This column by Dennis Prager is excellent, although it is a very sad indictment of the American music industry (and pop culture at large).
More Thoughts on WikiLeaks
In my previous post on WikiLeaks, a commenter included a link to this Salon article by Glenn Greenwald defending WikiLeaks' actions as good and even necessary. The article is very long and I can't respond point-by-point to everything in the article, but I wanted to respond to some of the major claims made in the article, which are similar to some other comments that I have heard in conversations on the topic.
Key to everything Greenwald writes is his claim that "those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon." Now, the question is, what exactly are these "heinous acts" that Greenwald refers to? He doesn't explicitly define them, but one can hazard a pretty good guess about what he means by reading the entire article. He clearly considers the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be in this category -- later in the article he goes so far as to include a "superb" quote that claims the U.S. "lie[d] blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade." This is completely false, of course -- Bush relied on U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies in determining that Iraq had WMD's, and nearly everyone else in Congress with access to that intelligence believed the same thing. The war was definitely based on faulty intelligence, but that is very different from claiming that Bush lied or misled the public into a war, a claim for which there is zero evidence. It is also fairly clear that Greenwald considers pretty much all of our country's tactics in the War on Terror, from wiretapping to enhanced interrogations to military tribunals to drone attacks against terrorists, to be "heinous acts."
This is an extremely important point to understand about Greenwald's argument. He not only does not support an aggressive prosecution of the War on Terror, but he actually thinks the U.S. has committed war crimes and deliberate murders of innocent civilians. Therefore, he believes the leaking of classified documents by WikiLeaks is justified because it exposes these crimes by our government. He believes the U.S. government is committing heinous crimes and therefore must be exposed, thwarted, and opposed in whatever way possible. Now, whether my readers agree or disagree with this, I don't see how there can be any debate that it is a deeply anti-American position. It assumes the U.S. is to blame for most of the problems in the world, and therefore cheers an organization that exists for the sole purpose of embarrassing its leaders and jeopardizing its international missions.
I couldn't be more passionately opposed to such a view. I believe our government has become sadly incompetent and corrupt in many ways, but I do not believe for a moment that the U.S. has committed heinous crimes on the international scene. Supposedly, according to Greenwald, WikiLeaks is shining a spotlight on these heinous crimes, but he provides not one example of a heinous crime committed by the U.S. government in any of these thousands of leaked documents. That is because the documents do not expose wrongdoing by the U.S. government. They do not reveal heinous crimes. It would be one thing if Assange were leaking a couple of specific documents that reveal crimes perpetrated or covered up by our government. That, in my opinion, would be justified. Instead, Assange is indiscriminately leaking thousands of classified documents, none of which expose crimes but all of which compromise our government's position in some way on the international scene. Assange is not a whistle-blower; he is an anti-American troublemaker. This provides an answer for the question that seems to puzzle Greenwald -- the question as to why so many liberals as well as conservatives have condemned WikiLeaks so harshly. The answer is simple: liberals as well as conservatives love our country and want to see it succeed and prosper.
What Greenwald doesn't seem to understand (or care about) is that our country is at war. There is an organization out there called Al Qaeda that wants to kill as many Americans as possible. Al Qaeda is supported and aided by many other radical organizations and national governments around the world. It has been a long time since 9/11, but several recent terrorist attacks and narrow escapes should remind us that this war is still very real. Because our enemies transcend national borders and operate with deception and secrecy, we cannot wage a conventional war against them. We also have to operate with deception and secrecy to track them down and destroy them. We have to take proactive measures such as enhanced interrogations to determine their plans before they strike and kill thousands of civilians. And of course, there is the little fact that we have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Classified documents are classified to protect their lives and the lives of foreign individuals and governments who are cooperating with and helping them. When that classified information is released indiscriminately, the lives of our military men and women are endangered and their mission is threatened. Leaking classified information is always dangerous, but especially so during wartime. Perhaps Greenwald doesn't think the wars are just, but is that any reason to put the lives of our troops in danger? They are just following orders and putting their lives on the line to defend us. Must they be sacrificed as collateral damage so Assange and Greenwald can get their kicks from embarrassing the U.S. government?
Greenwald's attitude is sadly typical of a sizable group of liberals and libertarians who think they are being patriotic when in fact they oppose our country at every turn. I am proud of our country and the fact that we have stood and continue to stand on the side of freedom and democracy around the globe while opposing tyranny and aggression (admittedly, this is becoming less and less of the case under Obama). You can argue about whether not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth the cost or whether they made us safer, but you can't argue about the fact that we rescued millions of Muslims from two of the most evil, repressive regimes in the world -- Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. After taking control of Iraq, we worked to create a stable government and transition to local rule instead of exploiting it for personal gain. When we entered Iraq, we were welcomed as liberators, and the Iraqi people willingly tried Hussein for war crimes and executed him. We rescued Kuwaiti Muslims from Iraqi invasion, and Bosnian Muslims from Serbian brutality. We saved Grenada, South Korea, and most of Europe from the evil of Communism. We have spoken out against human rights abuses around the world, stopped genocide in Rwanda, fought the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and stood in solidarity with dissidents in China and Iran. Not every action we have taken internationally has been successful or turned out the way we wanted (think Vietnam War), but I would challenge Greenwald to point out even one example where our intention was not clearly to protect the security of our country and our allies and to promote freedom and democracy. Our international involvement for the past century has meant nothing but good to the world. When our country fails in its international missions and goals, democracy is set back and terrorists and dictators everywhere are emboldened. If we fail in Afghanistan, who wins? The Taliban and the terrorist organizations they support. If we fail to kill terrorist leaders and dismantle terrorist organizations around the world, then the lives of millions of Americans are endangered. Our country is at war, and Greenwald apparently is not on our side.
Some of Greenwald's points are just laughable. For example, he ridicules Wolf Blitzer of CNN for making the obviously correct point that the government should take swift action to keep our national secrets secure. The fact that Greenwald thinks its an outrage for journalists to call on the U.S. government to guard important national security secrets more closely shows just how radically anti-American he is. Sorry, but in wartime every government has the obvious right to keep certain information secret, and if you don't believe that you are either too clueless to be writing a national column or you are actively rooting for our country's military to be defeated. To attack journalists for taking steps to protect sensitive information that could endanger the lives of our troops or our allies is really rather shocking to me. If the New York Times is too hawkish and pro-military for Greenwald, then he truly is delusional. The fact is, even an organization as deeply distrustful of the U.S. military as the Times still has enough moral decency and respect for our troops and our country to not blab every national security secret willy-nilly. The American media has an ethical responsibility to not endanger our troops overseas or to unnecessarily oppose our country's legitimate international objectives. They take that responsibility far less seriously today than they have for most of our country's history, but apparently the fact that they have any moral qualms whatsoever about actively rooting against our country's wartime interests is upsetting to some people.
That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING Greenwald writes is off base. He is right that Assange cannot be tried for treason, as he is not an American citizen. However, the army private that stole the documents for our government IS an American, and he can be tried for treason. He also makes a good point that the U.S. government needs to be very careful about assassinating supposed enemies without due process, including Assange, and that we as conservatives should be careful to be responsible and thoughtful in our comments about the government "eradicating" people we don't like. But overall, I think Greenwald is deeply misguided and is supporting an organization that is deeply hostile and dangerous to U.S. interests.
Key to everything Greenwald writes is his claim that "those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon." Now, the question is, what exactly are these "heinous acts" that Greenwald refers to? He doesn't explicitly define them, but one can hazard a pretty good guess about what he means by reading the entire article. He clearly considers the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be in this category -- later in the article he goes so far as to include a "superb" quote that claims the U.S. "lie[d] blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade." This is completely false, of course -- Bush relied on U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies in determining that Iraq had WMD's, and nearly everyone else in Congress with access to that intelligence believed the same thing. The war was definitely based on faulty intelligence, but that is very different from claiming that Bush lied or misled the public into a war, a claim for which there is zero evidence. It is also fairly clear that Greenwald considers pretty much all of our country's tactics in the War on Terror, from wiretapping to enhanced interrogations to military tribunals to drone attacks against terrorists, to be "heinous acts."
This is an extremely important point to understand about Greenwald's argument. He not only does not support an aggressive prosecution of the War on Terror, but he actually thinks the U.S. has committed war crimes and deliberate murders of innocent civilians. Therefore, he believes the leaking of classified documents by WikiLeaks is justified because it exposes these crimes by our government. He believes the U.S. government is committing heinous crimes and therefore must be exposed, thwarted, and opposed in whatever way possible. Now, whether my readers agree or disagree with this, I don't see how there can be any debate that it is a deeply anti-American position. It assumes the U.S. is to blame for most of the problems in the world, and therefore cheers an organization that exists for the sole purpose of embarrassing its leaders and jeopardizing its international missions.
I couldn't be more passionately opposed to such a view. I believe our government has become sadly incompetent and corrupt in many ways, but I do not believe for a moment that the U.S. has committed heinous crimes on the international scene. Supposedly, according to Greenwald, WikiLeaks is shining a spotlight on these heinous crimes, but he provides not one example of a heinous crime committed by the U.S. government in any of these thousands of leaked documents. That is because the documents do not expose wrongdoing by the U.S. government. They do not reveal heinous crimes. It would be one thing if Assange were leaking a couple of specific documents that reveal crimes perpetrated or covered up by our government. That, in my opinion, would be justified. Instead, Assange is indiscriminately leaking thousands of classified documents, none of which expose crimes but all of which compromise our government's position in some way on the international scene. Assange is not a whistle-blower; he is an anti-American troublemaker. This provides an answer for the question that seems to puzzle Greenwald -- the question as to why so many liberals as well as conservatives have condemned WikiLeaks so harshly. The answer is simple: liberals as well as conservatives love our country and want to see it succeed and prosper.
What Greenwald doesn't seem to understand (or care about) is that our country is at war. There is an organization out there called Al Qaeda that wants to kill as many Americans as possible. Al Qaeda is supported and aided by many other radical organizations and national governments around the world. It has been a long time since 9/11, but several recent terrorist attacks and narrow escapes should remind us that this war is still very real. Because our enemies transcend national borders and operate with deception and secrecy, we cannot wage a conventional war against them. We also have to operate with deception and secrecy to track them down and destroy them. We have to take proactive measures such as enhanced interrogations to determine their plans before they strike and kill thousands of civilians. And of course, there is the little fact that we have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Classified documents are classified to protect their lives and the lives of foreign individuals and governments who are cooperating with and helping them. When that classified information is released indiscriminately, the lives of our military men and women are endangered and their mission is threatened. Leaking classified information is always dangerous, but especially so during wartime. Perhaps Greenwald doesn't think the wars are just, but is that any reason to put the lives of our troops in danger? They are just following orders and putting their lives on the line to defend us. Must they be sacrificed as collateral damage so Assange and Greenwald can get their kicks from embarrassing the U.S. government?
Greenwald's attitude is sadly typical of a sizable group of liberals and libertarians who think they are being patriotic when in fact they oppose our country at every turn. I am proud of our country and the fact that we have stood and continue to stand on the side of freedom and democracy around the globe while opposing tyranny and aggression (admittedly, this is becoming less and less of the case under Obama). You can argue about whether not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth the cost or whether they made us safer, but you can't argue about the fact that we rescued millions of Muslims from two of the most evil, repressive regimes in the world -- Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. After taking control of Iraq, we worked to create a stable government and transition to local rule instead of exploiting it for personal gain. When we entered Iraq, we were welcomed as liberators, and the Iraqi people willingly tried Hussein for war crimes and executed him. We rescued Kuwaiti Muslims from Iraqi invasion, and Bosnian Muslims from Serbian brutality. We saved Grenada, South Korea, and most of Europe from the evil of Communism. We have spoken out against human rights abuses around the world, stopped genocide in Rwanda, fought the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and stood in solidarity with dissidents in China and Iran. Not every action we have taken internationally has been successful or turned out the way we wanted (think Vietnam War), but I would challenge Greenwald to point out even one example where our intention was not clearly to protect the security of our country and our allies and to promote freedom and democracy. Our international involvement for the past century has meant nothing but good to the world. When our country fails in its international missions and goals, democracy is set back and terrorists and dictators everywhere are emboldened. If we fail in Afghanistan, who wins? The Taliban and the terrorist organizations they support. If we fail to kill terrorist leaders and dismantle terrorist organizations around the world, then the lives of millions of Americans are endangered. Our country is at war, and Greenwald apparently is not on our side.
Some of Greenwald's points are just laughable. For example, he ridicules Wolf Blitzer of CNN for making the obviously correct point that the government should take swift action to keep our national secrets secure. The fact that Greenwald thinks its an outrage for journalists to call on the U.S. government to guard important national security secrets more closely shows just how radically anti-American he is. Sorry, but in wartime every government has the obvious right to keep certain information secret, and if you don't believe that you are either too clueless to be writing a national column or you are actively rooting for our country's military to be defeated. To attack journalists for taking steps to protect sensitive information that could endanger the lives of our troops or our allies is really rather shocking to me. If the New York Times is too hawkish and pro-military for Greenwald, then he truly is delusional. The fact is, even an organization as deeply distrustful of the U.S. military as the Times still has enough moral decency and respect for our troops and our country to not blab every national security secret willy-nilly. The American media has an ethical responsibility to not endanger our troops overseas or to unnecessarily oppose our country's legitimate international objectives. They take that responsibility far less seriously today than they have for most of our country's history, but apparently the fact that they have any moral qualms whatsoever about actively rooting against our country's wartime interests is upsetting to some people.
That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING Greenwald writes is off base. He is right that Assange cannot be tried for treason, as he is not an American citizen. However, the army private that stole the documents for our government IS an American, and he can be tried for treason. He also makes a good point that the U.S. government needs to be very careful about assassinating supposed enemies without due process, including Assange, and that we as conservatives should be careful to be responsible and thoughtful in our comments about the government "eradicating" people we don't like. But overall, I think Greenwald is deeply misguided and is supporting an organization that is deeply hostile and dangerous to U.S. interests.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Update on Yesterday's Prayer Vigil
I wanted to give my readers an update on the press conference and prayer vigil from yesterday. There was a large crowd of people there -- especially impressive given the fact that there was only 72 hours notice. The Washington Post reported 300 people, but I think the number was significantly higher than that. (Remember the big Tea Party protest in Washington DC last year that drew 300,000 - 500,000 or more people? The Washington Post reported that "tens of thousands of people" showed up.) My sister-in-law counted around 600 people during the prayer walk, and a number of people including myself had already left by that time. I saw 30 people from my church there, and there were probably more I didn't see. There were also a few counter-protestors -- probably no more than 30 or so. Many of them were holding signs saying "Pro-Child, Pro-Faith, Pro-Choice. Come on, didn't you know that sending a healthy baby into fatal cardiac arrest is GOOD for the baby?
Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition started the rally by asking everyone to kneel and pray, reminding us that we come in humility to plead for God's mercy. Throughout the event, I was impressed with the spirit of the attendees. There were no violent signs or angry rhetoric. Several of the speakers emphasized God's love for both mother and baby and His offer of forgiveness to women who had had abortions. The event was carefully coordinated with the police to ensure that there were no disruptions and that everything was peaceful. We were there not so much because we are against something but because we are for something -- something precious and valuable. We stand for life and for the protection of innocent children. It was encouraging to stand alongside so many other like-minded people.
Several local pastors, including my own, spoke briefly. Two of the speeches that touched my heart the most were from women. One was a Catholic woman who had held a prayer vigil with her two children outside the Germantown abortion clinic every Friday for four years. She had been toiling alone for years, and you could see how much it meant to her to finally see the Christian community mobilized. Another powerful speech was from a woman who had a late-term abortion when she was 14 years old. Her abortionist was George Tiller, a close associate of Leroy Carhart's. She deeply regrets her decision to kill her healthy baby and has become a pro-life advocate.
After the speeches there was a brief question-and-answer session with the press, and then the crowd walked around the shopping center, praying alone or in small groups. The center was cordoned off with yellow tape, which Mahoney noted was significant. After all, the police use yellow tape to denote a crime scene.
While it was encouraging to see such a large turnout, this rally is just the beginning, as several speakers noted. We had held out hope that the board of directors of the condo association that runs the shopping center would decide to kick Carhart and his clinic out of the shopping center during their emergency meeting yesterday, but apparently they decided they did not have a legal option to do so. We have to continue to keep the pressure on Leroy Carhart and his clinic and make it clear that we are not going away. My pastor said that we have a four-pronged strategy to fight this evil: continuing prayer, continuing protests, opening up a pregnancy center in a vacant building across the street from the clinic, and working to pass legislation to ban late-term abortions in Maryland. It is an uphill fight in a left-wing pro-abortion state like Maryland, but with God all things are possible. To stand by and do nothing while a grave injustice is being perpetrated right in our back yard makes us just as responsible as the people perpetrating the injustice.
Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition started the rally by asking everyone to kneel and pray, reminding us that we come in humility to plead for God's mercy. Throughout the event, I was impressed with the spirit of the attendees. There were no violent signs or angry rhetoric. Several of the speakers emphasized God's love for both mother and baby and His offer of forgiveness to women who had had abortions. The event was carefully coordinated with the police to ensure that there were no disruptions and that everything was peaceful. We were there not so much because we are against something but because we are for something -- something precious and valuable. We stand for life and for the protection of innocent children. It was encouraging to stand alongside so many other like-minded people.
Several local pastors, including my own, spoke briefly. Two of the speeches that touched my heart the most were from women. One was a Catholic woman who had held a prayer vigil with her two children outside the Germantown abortion clinic every Friday for four years. She had been toiling alone for years, and you could see how much it meant to her to finally see the Christian community mobilized. Another powerful speech was from a woman who had a late-term abortion when she was 14 years old. Her abortionist was George Tiller, a close associate of Leroy Carhart's. She deeply regrets her decision to kill her healthy baby and has become a pro-life advocate.
After the speeches there was a brief question-and-answer session with the press, and then the crowd walked around the shopping center, praying alone or in small groups. The center was cordoned off with yellow tape, which Mahoney noted was significant. After all, the police use yellow tape to denote a crime scene.
While it was encouraging to see such a large turnout, this rally is just the beginning, as several speakers noted. We had held out hope that the board of directors of the condo association that runs the shopping center would decide to kick Carhart and his clinic out of the shopping center during their emergency meeting yesterday, but apparently they decided they did not have a legal option to do so. We have to continue to keep the pressure on Leroy Carhart and his clinic and make it clear that we are not going away. My pastor said that we have a four-pronged strategy to fight this evil: continuing prayer, continuing protests, opening up a pregnancy center in a vacant building across the street from the clinic, and working to pass legislation to ban late-term abortions in Maryland. It is an uphill fight in a left-wing pro-abortion state like Maryland, but with God all things are possible. To stand by and do nothing while a grave injustice is being perpetrated right in our back yard makes us just as responsible as the people perpetrating the injustice.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Follow-up #2: Late-Term Abortions in Maryland
I wanted to follow up further on A.K.'s excellent postings about Leroy Carhart coming to Germantown, MD. Here are some additional thoughts:
1. It's important to understand that Carhart's specialty is killing babies in the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy--right up to the day before the baby's due date. In a large majority of these cases, the "fetus" that Carhart kills and disposes of like a piece of trash is viable and would survive outside the mother's womb. Operation Rescue describes the method of "late-term abortion" practiced by Carhart here. It is well worth reading the entire article, but a summary of the practice would be that the baby is injected with a massive dose of digoxin directly through the mother's abdomen, which is designed to give the baby a fatal heart attack. A couple days later, the woman gives birth to the dead baby over a toilet. In addition to the obvious evil of killing a living, breathing baby with tiny fingers and a beating heart that is capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb, this barbaric procedure causes pain and suffering to the baby. Massive heart attacks are frightening and painful, and studies have indicated babies as young as the 2nd month of pregnancy are capable of feeling pain. Of course, there have been numerous botched cases of late-term abortions, including ones in which the baby is delivered alive and left to die and ones in which the baby is born alive but severely disabled as a result of the procedure.
Now, I think all abortion is the taking of innocent human life and as such is a moral evil and a deep injustice (excluding those abortions necessary to save the life of the mother). I believe it is a moral issue, not a religious one, and I believe that there is abundant scientific evidence to support the pro-life position. However, I can understand why non-Christian people who do not hold to biblical principles about life beginning at conception might be open to supporting legalized abortions in the earliest stages of pregnancy. After all, the fetus seems quite undeveloped and doesn't look a whole lot like a baby in the first month or two. But it is impossible for me to understand how any person with a functioning conscience could support legalized abortion on demand (that is, abortion not due to rape, incest, or protection of the mother's life) past the point of the baby's viability. This is killing a living human baby capable of surviving outside the mother's womb -- and killing it in an inhumane, brutal fashion. It is infanticide and morally unconscionable by any conceivable community standard, religious or not. Huge majorities of Americans -- including self-described pro-choice Americans -- oppose late-term abortions.
2. If we care about justice and the protection of the most needy and helpless in our society, the slaughter of innocent babies in abortion should deeply grieve and anger us. But what really upsets me is that this is happening in my own backyard, in a town literally 15 minutes from my home. Because Leroy Carhart, one of the few individuals in the whole country brazen enough to perform late-term abortions, is setting up his practice right here in Montgomery County, MD, those of us who live in the area have a unique opportunity to speak out and take a stand on this issue. I am thankful that since the story first broke on Tuesday, my pastor has been at the forefront of the issue. He helped to organize the meeting yesterday with local pastors and activists that A.K. mentioned, and he had a 30-minute interview with a local Christian radio station earlier this evening about Leroy Carhart and the prayer vigil coming up on Monday. He has always been deeply reticent (correctly, in my view) about getting involved in any issue that could be seen as political, but this is not a political issue. It is an issue of life and death, and I think we are failing in our mission to be salt and light if we don't speak out and get involved.
3. So what can each of us as individuals do? The most immediate opportunity for those of us in the Montgomery County area is the prayer vigil coming up on Monday from 11:00 to 1:00 near the location of Carhart's new office in Germantown. The location of the vigil will be at 13233 Executive Park Terrace, Germantown, MD. For anyone interested in coming, there has been a new website set up called http://www.kickoutcarhart.com/ which has a detailed map showing where to park and additional information. There will be a press conference held right at 11:00 am, and we are expecting to have many local and perhaps even national media representatives there. After the press conference, we will spread out and pray. If you are like me and can only come for part of the time, then my pastor is encouraging people to come right at 11:00 for the press conference. We are hoping for a large turnout which will send a strong message that our community does not want Carhart performing late-term abortions here. The vigil and press conference are purely peaceful and we are coordinating with the local police to avoid disruptions; we want our testimony to demonstrate peace and love rather than anger and violence.
Carhart's background is extremely disturbing. He was the abortionist whose negligence apparently contributed to the death of Christin Gilbert, a woman with Down Syndrome who lost her life due to a botched late-term abortion. Also, the radio host who interviewed my pastor last night mentioned that Carhart is apparently moving to Maryland to avoid pending investigations into his practices by other states. It seems the board of the shopping center where Carhart's clinic is located is not too happy about him coming and about the negative response from the community, and they are holding an emergency board meeting to discuss the issue at noon on Monday -- during the prayer vigil! We should pray that the board will deny Carhart and his clinic space in the shopping center. Even if you do not live in the area or cannot come to the press conference and the vigil, you can still stand united with us in prayer. And wherever you live, you can volunteer and offer financial support for crisis pregnancy centers in your area. This is the front line in the fight against legalized abortion -- it offers an alternative to abortion for pregnant women, many of whom are scared and alone and who need love and support.
1. It's important to understand that Carhart's specialty is killing babies in the 3rd trimester of the pregnancy--right up to the day before the baby's due date. In a large majority of these cases, the "fetus" that Carhart kills and disposes of like a piece of trash is viable and would survive outside the mother's womb. Operation Rescue describes the method of "late-term abortion" practiced by Carhart here. It is well worth reading the entire article, but a summary of the practice would be that the baby is injected with a massive dose of digoxin directly through the mother's abdomen, which is designed to give the baby a fatal heart attack. A couple days later, the woman gives birth to the dead baby over a toilet. In addition to the obvious evil of killing a living, breathing baby with tiny fingers and a beating heart that is capable of surviving outside of the mother's womb, this barbaric procedure causes pain and suffering to the baby. Massive heart attacks are frightening and painful, and studies have indicated babies as young as the 2nd month of pregnancy are capable of feeling pain. Of course, there have been numerous botched cases of late-term abortions, including ones in which the baby is delivered alive and left to die and ones in which the baby is born alive but severely disabled as a result of the procedure.
Now, I think all abortion is the taking of innocent human life and as such is a moral evil and a deep injustice (excluding those abortions necessary to save the life of the mother). I believe it is a moral issue, not a religious one, and I believe that there is abundant scientific evidence to support the pro-life position. However, I can understand why non-Christian people who do not hold to biblical principles about life beginning at conception might be open to supporting legalized abortions in the earliest stages of pregnancy. After all, the fetus seems quite undeveloped and doesn't look a whole lot like a baby in the first month or two. But it is impossible for me to understand how any person with a functioning conscience could support legalized abortion on demand (that is, abortion not due to rape, incest, or protection of the mother's life) past the point of the baby's viability. This is killing a living human baby capable of surviving outside the mother's womb -- and killing it in an inhumane, brutal fashion. It is infanticide and morally unconscionable by any conceivable community standard, religious or not. Huge majorities of Americans -- including self-described pro-choice Americans -- oppose late-term abortions.
2. If we care about justice and the protection of the most needy and helpless in our society, the slaughter of innocent babies in abortion should deeply grieve and anger us. But what really upsets me is that this is happening in my own backyard, in a town literally 15 minutes from my home. Because Leroy Carhart, one of the few individuals in the whole country brazen enough to perform late-term abortions, is setting up his practice right here in Montgomery County, MD, those of us who live in the area have a unique opportunity to speak out and take a stand on this issue. I am thankful that since the story first broke on Tuesday, my pastor has been at the forefront of the issue. He helped to organize the meeting yesterday with local pastors and activists that A.K. mentioned, and he had a 30-minute interview with a local Christian radio station earlier this evening about Leroy Carhart and the prayer vigil coming up on Monday. He has always been deeply reticent (correctly, in my view) about getting involved in any issue that could be seen as political, but this is not a political issue. It is an issue of life and death, and I think we are failing in our mission to be salt and light if we don't speak out and get involved.
3. So what can each of us as individuals do? The most immediate opportunity for those of us in the Montgomery County area is the prayer vigil coming up on Monday from 11:00 to 1:00 near the location of Carhart's new office in Germantown. The location of the vigil will be at 13233 Executive Park Terrace, Germantown, MD. For anyone interested in coming, there has been a new website set up called http://www.kickoutcarhart.com/ which has a detailed map showing where to park and additional information. There will be a press conference held right at 11:00 am, and we are expecting to have many local and perhaps even national media representatives there. After the press conference, we will spread out and pray. If you are like me and can only come for part of the time, then my pastor is encouraging people to come right at 11:00 for the press conference. We are hoping for a large turnout which will send a strong message that our community does not want Carhart performing late-term abortions here. The vigil and press conference are purely peaceful and we are coordinating with the local police to avoid disruptions; we want our testimony to demonstrate peace and love rather than anger and violence.
Carhart's background is extremely disturbing. He was the abortionist whose negligence apparently contributed to the death of Christin Gilbert, a woman with Down Syndrome who lost her life due to a botched late-term abortion. Also, the radio host who interviewed my pastor last night mentioned that Carhart is apparently moving to Maryland to avoid pending investigations into his practices by other states. It seems the board of the shopping center where Carhart's clinic is located is not too happy about him coming and about the negative response from the community, and they are holding an emergency board meeting to discuss the issue at noon on Monday -- during the prayer vigil! We should pray that the board will deny Carhart and his clinic space in the shopping center. Even if you do not live in the area or cannot come to the press conference and the vigil, you can still stand united with us in prayer. And wherever you live, you can volunteer and offer financial support for crisis pregnancy centers in your area. This is the front line in the fight against legalized abortion -- it offers an alternative to abortion for pregnant women, many of whom are scared and alone and who need love and support.
Follow-up: Late-Term Abortions in Maryland
There was a meeting yesterday at Shady Grove PCA of local clergy, pro-life activists, and the director of the Christian Defense Coalition. The purpose was to pray about this new evil coming into our community and discuss the appropriate response.
Very few doctors in the country perform these types of procedures and there are currently no abortion clinics in Maryland that perform abortions after 19 weeks. LeRoy Carhart is a very prominent late-term abortionist, and will perform the procedure up to the 9th month of pregnancy. He is moving from Nebraska now that the state has outlawed abortions after 19 weeks.
Our pastor forwarded this information he received about late term abortions from Gail Tierney, Director of the Rockville Pregnancy Center: “Late term abortion can be performed up until the day of birth. It involves inserting a needle into the baby's heart, injecting medicine which will produce a fatal heart attack. This is done on viable babies.”
LeRoy Carhart could begin performing late-term abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services as early as Monday, December 6. There will be a prayer vigil and press conference held outside the office on Monday from 11am-1pm:
Germantown Commons Shopping Center
13233 Executive Park Terrace, Germantown.
Organizers are expecting that both local and national news will be reporting this event. The event will be peaceful and organizers are working with the police department. The intent is to stand up for these defenseless babies and to publicly show that the faith community and others in Montgomery County are opposed to the practice of late-term abortion in our community. Please come out to the vigil if you are in this area, and wherever you are pray that some change will come out of this event.
Very few doctors in the country perform these types of procedures and there are currently no abortion clinics in Maryland that perform abortions after 19 weeks. LeRoy Carhart is a very prominent late-term abortionist, and will perform the procedure up to the 9th month of pregnancy. He is moving from Nebraska now that the state has outlawed abortions after 19 weeks.
Our pastor forwarded this information he received about late term abortions from Gail Tierney, Director of the Rockville Pregnancy Center: “Late term abortion can be performed up until the day of birth. It involves inserting a needle into the baby's heart, injecting medicine which will produce a fatal heart attack. This is done on viable babies.”
LeRoy Carhart could begin performing late-term abortions at Germantown Reproductive Health Services as early as Monday, December 6. There will be a prayer vigil and press conference held outside the office on Monday from 11am-1pm:
Germantown Commons Shopping Center
13233 Executive Park Terrace, Germantown.
Organizers are expecting that both local and national news will be reporting this event. The event will be peaceful and organizers are working with the police department. The intent is to stand up for these defenseless babies and to publicly show that the faith community and others in Montgomery County are opposed to the practice of late-term abortion in our community. Please come out to the vigil if you are in this area, and wherever you are pray that some change will come out of this event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)