http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
Zogby Poll: Almost No Obama Voters Ace Election Test
Survey finds most Obama voters remembered negative coverage of McCain/Palin statements but struggled to correctly answer questions about coverage associated with Obama/Biden
UTICA, New York -- Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.
Zogby Statement on Ziegler poll
Only 54% of Obama voters were able to answer at least half or more of the questions correctly.
The 12-question, multiple-choice survey found questions regarding statements linked to Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin were far more likely to be answered correctly by Obama voters than questions about statements associated with Obama and Vice-President–Elect Joe Biden. The telephone survey of 512 Obama voters nationwide was conducted Nov. 13-15, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points. The survey was commissioned by John Ziegler, author of The Death of Free Speech, producer of the recently released film "Blocking the Path to 9/11" and producer of the upcoming documentary film, Media Malpractice...How Obama Got Elected.
"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby
"After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace," said Ziegler.
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.
Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President.
In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Abortion & Discrimination
In the United States it is perfectly legal to abort your child if the child has Down's Syndrome, in fact between 70-90% of children with Downs Syndrome are aborted. What the media blantly did not care for reporting in the 2008 election was that Sarah Palin was part of a MINORITY of women that kept their own child despite Downs Syndrome. Children with Downs Syndrome pose no threat at all to society, many tend to be very happy people. The United States is no worse than the Nazis of Germany in this regard by purging off people deemed inferior. Barack Obama as President said he would sign into law the Freedom Of Choice Act, which would push government funding for abortion, which would not exclude the abortion of children with Downs Syndrome.
Friday, November 28, 2008
First Female Medical Doctor was Pro Life
taken from Lifenews.com:
In 1849 Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell (1821-1910) became the first woman to receive a medical degree from an American medical school, and in 1859 became the first woman on the British medical register. She was ardently anti-abortion and pro-woman, choosing to enter the field of medicine partly because she was repulsed that the term “female physician” was applied to abortionists.
:The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term “female physician” should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women…. I finally determined to do what I could do “to redeem the hells,” and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice."
In 1849 Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell (1821-1910) became the first woman to receive a medical degree from an American medical school, and in 1859 became the first woman on the British medical register. She was ardently anti-abortion and pro-woman, choosing to enter the field of medicine partly because she was repulsed that the term “female physician” was applied to abortionists.
:The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term “female physician” should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women…. I finally determined to do what I could do “to redeem the hells,” and especially the one form of hell thus forced upon my notice."
Friday, November 14, 2008
Proponents of Gay Marriage are Intolerant
As people are enraged about gay marriage being banned in the state of California homosexuals and their supports have launched a campaign of pure bigotry and hate towards blacks, Mormons, Catholics, and Protestant groups.
The black community is estimated to have voted Yes on 8 by 70% to 30%.
The Gay marriage community has a history of being anti religion, in the passed years homosexuals desecrated a crucifix in gay pride rallies. This year angered homosexuals in Palm Springs trampled a cross of an elderly Prop 8 supporter: http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html
This behavior of homosexuals is recorded in the Holy Scriptures which says:
The black community is estimated to have voted Yes on 8 by 70% to 30%.
The Gay marriage community has a history of being anti religion, in the passed years homosexuals desecrated a crucifix in gay pride rallies. This year angered homosexuals in Palm Springs trampled a cross of an elderly Prop 8 supporter: http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html
This behavior of homosexuals is recorded in the Holy Scriptures which says:
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.--Romans 1:26-32
Saturday, November 1, 2008
More on Abortion & Obama
Barack Obama
Category: News and Politics
First to begin with:
The Washington Post on Barack Obama's extreme views concerning abortion writes:
"...Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. "--Washington Post, Obama's Abortion Extremism, April 2, 2008, by Michael Gerson, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html
Barack Obama claims that a baby that survived an abortion and is outside of the womb is NOT a child:
"whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
In a lack of concern for children, Barack Obama in this case, not wanting to be stained with voting no, voted "present," rather than support the bill which would REQUIRED hospitals to recognize infants who survived abortions, were outside of the mother's womb as persons. A 'present' vote in the Illinois Senate is virtually the same as voting "no."
Obama's wife defended an abortive, if not infanticidal procedure, 'partial birth abortion' in a February 17, 2004 campaign letter for Barack Obama. 'Partial Birth abortion' refers to a procedure which the United States Congress condemned in 2003 as:
"an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."--Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s3enr.txt.pdf
Michelle Obama CONDEMNED Congress' decision as a "ban on a legitimate medical procedure." See here for a copy of the 1st page and 2nd page . What's legitimate about a procedure that punches a hole in the head of a baby and sucks its brains out?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htmAbortion reports that Obama:
* Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Obama has also lied many times about his votes for abortion and infanticide, he condemned groups who asserted Obama voted for infanticide as "lying" saying the anti-infanticide legislation he voted against did not match the language of a federal bill, then later it was revealed it was practically verbatim the same and Obama was the liar.
Obama also falsely claimed that "although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years — abortions have not gone down."
That was false, abortion rates did decline as reported:
"The Guttmacher figures also show that the decline in abortion has occurred during the Bush administration years as well, with abortions falling 8 percent between 2000 and 2005. The abortion rate fell 9 percent during those same years."
If Barack Obama wants to push for a government run universal health care system, then why not ban abortion and infanticide since the government will now pay to help the keep 'unwanted' babies healthy?
For more links which show Obama's record for voting for abortion and infanticide, and give links to government website on it see http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
When Barack Obama was asked " "When does a baby in the womb receive full human rights?," he responded:
"... whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity ... is above my pay grade."
No one really gets why he said "above my pay grade" but its agreed he was saying 'I don't know.' This is just shows Obama is either 1)a liar playing to the audience, or 2)an absolute idiot.
As shown before Obama said babies in the womb have no rights, which the first quote I made showed. Obama is openly 'prochoice,' shouldn't the only logical thing for Obama to have said is that babies do not have rights at all in the womb. Obama left open the possibility that he is WRONG, and that the fetus is a person and should have rights, but Obama feels he is just playing it safe by allowing them to be murdered by abortion/infanticide
Barack Obama has accepted thousands of dollars from Planned Parenthood, an organization which promotes and procures thousands of abortions. What few know is that Planned Parenthood was started out by a white supremacist, Margaret Sanger, who refered to black people as "human weed." She openly was a member of the KKK:
"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)
Her group was originally called the American Birth Control League, and is now Planned Parenthood.
Here are some more facts about abortion:
Roe v. Wade in 1973 made abortion a woman's right in the USA, the plaintiff was "Jane Roe" who sued Texas for the right to get an abortion. What few people know is that Jane Roe has since renounced what she did, and is against Roe v. Wade which ruled in her favor. Her real name is Norma McCorvey, and she even reopened the case to try to get the Supreme Court decision in her favor overturned (McCorvey v Hill) in 2004. She also admited that she lied when she said she was raped and needed an abortion.
Part of Norma McCorvey's argument to undo Roe v Wade and more towards banning abortion was:
1) women suffer "long term emotional damage and impair relationships for their decision,"
2) "that women may be affected emotionally and physically for years afterward and may be more prone to engage in high-risk, self-destructive conduct as a result of having had abortions,"
3) women at the abortion centers are rushed through the process and given "little or no medical or emotional counseling"
4) since Roe v Wade was passed that give woman and babies more help including adoption, and that unwed mothers are not ostracized as they were in the 1970s
5) science now shows the fetus responds to stimuli and pain sooner than believed in the 1970s (former abortionists admit to this, there are reports of babies pulling away from the grabs at babies)
McCorvey said also that she did not anticipate "abortions as a form of birth control."
In the United States about 1/3 pregnancies result in a surgerical abortion.
Every year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide, that is about 26%.
Feminists:
The modern feminist movement has made the right to kill children a center piece in woman's rights. However, the original feminists from the 19th Century such as Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton condemned abortion.
When asked whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded,
"'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death,"
she then continues men must help prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty
In the radical woman's rights newspaper, The Revolution, Susan B Anthony condemned abortion as "child murder."
A more recent feminists Graciela Oliverez, condemned those who upheld the right to abortion saying :
"To talk about the "wanted" and the "unwanted" child smacks too much of bigotry and prejudice. Many of us have experienced the sting of being "unwanted" by certain segments of our society … ."
19th Century feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton shows the error in today's modern feminist movement:
"when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit"
Feminists and abortion rights advocates often refer to the children as being property by saying the child is part of the woman's body.
The following is a prolife feminists site that PROVES that the ORIGINAL feminists were AGAINST abortion and denounced it as murder:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm
Category: News and Politics
First to begin with:
The Washington Post on Barack Obama's extreme views concerning abortion writes:
"...Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. "--Washington Post, Obama's Abortion Extremism, April 2, 2008, by Michael Gerson, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html
Barack Obama claims that a baby that survived an abortion and is outside of the womb is NOT a child:
"whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute."
In a lack of concern for children, Barack Obama in this case, not wanting to be stained with voting no, voted "present," rather than support the bill which would REQUIRED hospitals to recognize infants who survived abortions, were outside of the mother's womb as persons. A 'present' vote in the Illinois Senate is virtually the same as voting "no."
Obama's wife defended an abortive, if not infanticidal procedure, 'partial birth abortion' in a February 17, 2004 campaign letter for Barack Obama. 'Partial Birth abortion' refers to a procedure which the United States Congress condemned in 2003 as:
"an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."--Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s3enr.txt.pdf
Michelle Obama CONDEMNED Congress' decision as a "ban on a legitimate medical procedure." See here for a copy of the 1st page
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htmAbortion reports that Obama:
* Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Obama has also lied many times about his votes for abortion and infanticide, he condemned groups who asserted Obama voted for infanticide as "lying" saying the anti-infanticide legislation he voted against did not match the language of a federal bill, then later it was revealed it was practically verbatim the same and Obama was the liar.
Obama also falsely claimed that "although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years — abortions have not gone down."
That was false, abortion rates did decline as reported:
"The Guttmacher figures also show that the decline in abortion has occurred during the Bush administration years as well, with abortions falling 8 percent between 2000 and 2005. The abortion rate fell 9 percent during those same years."
If Barack Obama wants to push for a government run universal health care system, then why not ban abortion and infanticide since the government will now pay to help the keep 'unwanted' babies healthy?
For more links which show Obama's record for voting for abortion and infanticide, and give links to government website on it see http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
When Barack Obama was asked " "When does a baby in the womb receive full human rights?," he responded:
"... whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity ... is above my pay grade."
No one really gets why he said "above my pay grade" but its agreed he was saying 'I don't know.' This is just shows Obama is either 1)a liar playing to the audience, or 2)an absolute idiot.
As shown before Obama said babies in the womb have no rights, which the first quote I made showed. Obama is openly 'prochoice,' shouldn't the only logical thing for Obama to have said is that babies do not have rights at all in the womb. Obama left open the possibility that he is WRONG, and that the fetus is a person and should have rights, but Obama feels he is just playing it safe by allowing them to be murdered by abortion/infanticide
Barack Obama has accepted thousands of dollars from Planned Parenthood, an organization which promotes and procures thousands of abortions. What few know is that Planned Parenthood was started out by a white supremacist, Margaret Sanger, who refered to black people as "human weed." She openly was a member of the KKK:
"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)
Her group was originally called the American Birth Control League, and is now Planned Parenthood.
Here are some more facts about abortion:
Roe v. Wade in 1973 made abortion a woman's right in the USA, the plaintiff was "Jane Roe" who sued Texas for the right to get an abortion. What few people know is that Jane Roe has since renounced what she did, and is against Roe v. Wade which ruled in her favor. Her real name is Norma McCorvey, and she even reopened the case to try to get the Supreme Court decision in her favor overturned (McCorvey v Hill) in 2004. She also admited that she lied when she said she was raped and needed an abortion.
Part of Norma McCorvey's argument to undo Roe v Wade and more towards banning abortion was:
1) women suffer "long term emotional damage and impair relationships for their decision,"
2) "that women may be affected emotionally and physically for years afterward and may be more prone to engage in high-risk, self-destructive conduct as a result of having had abortions,"
3) women at the abortion centers are rushed through the process and given "little or no medical or emotional counseling"
4) since Roe v Wade was passed that give woman and babies more help including adoption, and that unwed mothers are not ostracized as they were in the 1970s
5) science now shows the fetus responds to stimuli and pain sooner than believed in the 1970s (former abortionists admit to this, there are reports of babies pulling away from the grabs at babies)
McCorvey said also that she did not anticipate "abortions as a form of birth control."
In the United States about 1/3 pregnancies result in a surgerical abortion.
Every year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide, that is about 26%.
Feminists:
The modern feminist movement has made the right to kill children a center piece in woman's rights. However, the original feminists from the 19th Century such as Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton condemned abortion.
When asked whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded,
"'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death,"
she then continues men must help prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty
In the radical woman's rights newspaper, The Revolution, Susan B Anthony condemned abortion as "child murder."
A more recent feminists Graciela Oliverez, condemned those who upheld the right to abortion saying :
"To talk about the "wanted" and the "unwanted" child smacks too much of bigotry and prejudice. Many of us have experienced the sting of being "unwanted" by certain segments of our society … ."
19th Century feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton shows the error in today's modern feminist movement:
"when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit"
Feminists and abortion rights advocates often refer to the children as being property by saying the child is part of the woman's body.
The following is a prolife feminists site that PROVES that the ORIGINAL feminists were AGAINST abortion and denounced it as murder:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index.htm
Obama Contradicts 1975 LAw
The Obama campaign and Obama himself in his book insisted the Born Alive infant Protection Act was unnecessary since a 1975 Law already protected infants, but did it, not really, they law did not protect the ones dying at Christ's Hospital. Even if this law did its obvious Obama argued AGAINST the 1975 law:
"adding a -- an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."-Barack Obama, Illinois Senate, April 4, 2002, on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, page 33Obama on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/s trans92/ST040402.pdf
This contradicts the 1975 law the Obama campaign uses to say made the Born Alive Infant Protection Actn was unnecessary since the 1975 law protected infants. Since the 1975 law REQUIRED the additional doctor Obama ARGUED against:
"Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony."-Illinois Abortion Act 720 ILCS 510.6 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
"adding a -- an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."-Barack Obama, Illinois Senate, April 4, 2002, on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, page 33Obama on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/s trans92/ST040402.pdf
This contradicts the 1975 law the Obama campaign uses to say made the Born Alive Infant Protection Actn was unnecessary since the 1975 law protected infants. Since the 1975 law REQUIRED the additional doctor Obama ARGUED against:
"Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony."-Illinois Abortion Act 720 ILCS 510.6 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
Friday, October 31, 2008
Prop 8-Yes
Proposition 8 is to ban homosexuals from marrying. In the State of California homosexual couples are already given 'civil unions' which award them rights like heterosexual couples in marriage. The opponents to Proposition 8 blast the proponents of it as "intolerant," "bigots," religious nuts, and vulgar language, which I personally received when shaking my head at Prop 8 opponents protesting at the Orange Circle and giving a "pfff, please" sign, these angels of tolerance and equality cried out "fu*k you!!."
Gay marriage would have never been tolerated by the founder or framers of the state/Federal Constitution.
Homosexuality is unhealthy, this is an obvious fact which the opponents of Prop 8 downplay and ignore. There is a reason why the Red Cross and other centers that accept blood or plasma do not take male homosexuals as donors, they are a HIGH risk.
Homosexuality was considered a DISORDER by many
Gay marriage would have never been tolerated by the founder or framers of the state/Federal Constitution.
Homosexuality is unhealthy, this is an obvious fact which the opponents of Prop 8 downplay and ignore. There is a reason why the Red Cross and other centers that accept blood or plasma do not take male homosexuals as donors, they are a HIGH risk.
Homosexuality was considered a DISORDER by many
Props 4 -Yes
Proposition 4 requires a minor, under 18, to have her parents notified when procuring an abortion. The parents do not make the decision for the abortion. Clandestine abortions for minors have been used before for child predators to coverup their rapes of young girls, the last election there was a similar proposition that was put up but it failed, and there was audio available where the abortion clinics permitted young girls get abortions paid for by their adult "boyfriends." Planned Parenthood in many instances did not report the crimes.
Planned Parenthood has used the same exact TV in trying to convince people to vote no on it. They play on people's fears where a girl is beaten by her parents (for getting pregnant or getting an abortion??), this is faulty for a few reason.
1)Roe v Wade was passed in 1973 in part because it was argued that single mothers were frowned upon by society.
This is not the case anymore, its been estimated about 50% of children are now born to unwed mothers, maybe more in a liberal state like California. Planned Parenthood is using a fairly outdated arguement.
2)Most parents don't beat their children, they are saying don't pass 4 because of a case that is only maybe 1/100 at most. You don't not pass laws because of the minority of instances..
3)The girls are allowed to get an exception if they do come from abusive families, this is what was emphasized by this years version of 4. However abortions rights proponents ignore that, or when it is addressed they say its too burdensome, which is none sense.
Abortion rights groups and the Democratic Party, the Party of Death, assert Prop 4 is to take away a woman's right to choose. Which is garbage because
a) Females under 18 are not legally considered women, they are minors,
b)Parents are legally responsible for their childrens actions, why should abortion
be an exception?
c)Parents need to approve medical/surgical procedures, a minor cannot take tylenol
at school, or use an inhaler without a form by a doctor and or parent, why should
getting an abortion, which is far more dangerous, be an exception?
d)"Right to choose" is sophistry, it sounds nice but says nothing. The choice is
to slaughter a child, baby killing should not be even legally tolerated.
The Bishop of California have endorsed Proposition 4.
Planned Parenthood has used the same exact TV in trying to convince people to vote no on it. They play on people's fears where a girl is beaten by her parents (for getting pregnant or getting an abortion??), this is faulty for a few reason.
1)Roe v Wade was passed in 1973 in part because it was argued that single mothers were frowned upon by society.
This is not the case anymore, its been estimated about 50% of children are now born to unwed mothers, maybe more in a liberal state like California. Planned Parenthood is using a fairly outdated arguement.
2)Most parents don't beat their children, they are saying don't pass 4 because of a case that is only maybe 1/100 at most. You don't not pass laws because of the minority of instances..
3)The girls are allowed to get an exception if they do come from abusive families, this is what was emphasized by this years version of 4. However abortions rights proponents ignore that, or when it is addressed they say its too burdensome, which is none sense.
Abortion rights groups and the Democratic Party, the Party of Death, assert Prop 4 is to take away a woman's right to choose. Which is garbage because
a) Females under 18 are not legally considered women, they are minors,
b)Parents are legally responsible for their childrens actions, why should abortion
be an exception?
c)Parents need to approve medical/surgical procedures, a minor cannot take tylenol
at school, or use an inhaler without a form by a doctor and or parent, why should
getting an abortion, which is far more dangerous, be an exception?
d)"Right to choose" is sophistry, it sounds nice but says nothing. The choice is
to slaughter a child, baby killing should not be even legally tolerated.
The Bishop of California have endorsed Proposition 4.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Slaves and Aborted Babies
"It is necessary to dehumanize a class of human beings before you can exploit or kill them."
Obama won't lower abortion rates
Barack Obama claimed before that he wants to make lowering abortion rates a platform in his party, despite telling Planned Parenthood he would sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would repeal abortion restriction, and would make abortions easier to get, and despite his campaigns efforts and speech before the Illinois Senate saying a fetus in or out of the womb should not be called a 'person', 'child' or 'human being,' despite telling Rick Warren in a forum in Lakeforest that he doesn't know when people get human rights since that issue was 'above his paygrade.' Despite his efforts to let even kids under 18 to get abortion which out having there parents know, something that protects child predators.
Most recently Obama answer this question by a proabortion rights group:
"Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?"
with this unexplained answer:
"No." http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire
Barack Obama claims he wants to lower pregnancy rates, but that was obviously a cheap ploy for votes and to win over voters that believe slaughtering kids is evil. Barack Obama changes his views and downplays them to fit the audience he is talking to. If Obama really wanted to lower abortion rate, Why does he OPPOSE funding Pregnancy Crisis Centers, if they are places that LOWER abortion rates by offering women alternatives to it?
Most recently Obama answer this question by a proabortion rights group:
"Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?"
with this unexplained answer:
"No." http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire
Barack Obama claims he wants to lower pregnancy rates, but that was obviously a cheap ploy for votes and to win over voters that believe slaughtering kids is evil. Barack Obama changes his views and downplays them to fit the audience he is talking to. If Obama really wanted to lower abortion rate, Why does he OPPOSE funding Pregnancy Crisis Centers, if they are places that LOWER abortion rates by offering women alternatives to it?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Pictures from other blogs
Pontius Pilate, Prefect of the Roman Province of Judaea.
Loved to give speeches in front of Doric columns, oh wait that's Obama. Pilate said moral questions like the execution of the innocent were "above his pay grade," oh wait that's Obama too.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Infanticide
JillStanek.com is the site to go to expose Barack Hussein Obama's record of support for the ministry of death, infanticide and abortion. Ever since Obama's days in the Illinois senate, which was only like 5 years ago, he has been lying and trying to cover up his extremely stupid votes in the Illinois Senate. Any normal person would have seen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a softball and an easy YES vote, yes infants who survive abortions should be recognized as HUMAN BEINGS, the argument that they are part of the woman's body is absolutely unusable at this point(not that it ever was a valid argument). Obama's website since has come up with the weakest argument ever to show why he voted AGAINST infant protection. They claim since Obama is prochoice, Obama felt the legislation would restrict abortion rights, which Obama really did believe. The problem is it did NO such thing, even Hillary Clinton supporters saw Obama's vote as nothing but infanticide. Obama threw infants under the bus in favor to protect what in his distorted mind was an attack on women's rights (i.e. the right to kill their children). On the Obama website the Obama campaign asserts the following is "language CLEARLY threatening Roe":
It's so CLEAR it cannot be seen at all, how does that language in ANYWAY "threaten Roe." It is referring to a LIVE BORN CHILD, one outside of the womb. Not to mention EVEN if this legislation were to be anti abortion, Jane Roe would not be offended, she would be VERY happy since she is now a PROLIFE activist and hates people using her lawsuit to uphold the right to the homicide of child in the womb.
After reading Obama's speech in the Illinois Senate, in which he was the only one audacious enough to speak about this act that would protect the right of children born alive after failed abortion. Obama in his warped logic felt that by saying the fetus born alive were 'children" would result in the end of abortion (can't have that) so we cannot at all justify calling a fetus, even out of the womb a 'child' since he said the 14th amendment does not permit people to kill a child. Furthermore, Obama felt that if there was a second doctor called to take care of the child should it be BORN ALIVE, it would burden the mothers choice to have an abortion, obviously he has no concern at all, and he is implicitly implicating himself as being a proponent of infanticide. Since this time he has been trying to wash the record as to what happened with his infanticidal votes, including the claim that this vote was unneccesary since there were already existing laws against the infanticide practiced at the hospital in which the incident started, Christ's Hospital, which incidentally had Obama's pastor "Dr" Jeremiah Wright on the board as it was jointly controlled by Obama's denomination and a Lutheran group. So clearly Obama had some self interest in opposing this legislation. Also, Obama's denomination "United Church of Christ" was part of the few 'Christian' 'churches' that support abortion rights. But I digress, Obama's supports and infant-hating liberals claim the 1975 law 720 ILCS 510/6 already condemned the infanticide of said case, however what they will admit is that PROLIFE attorney General of Illinois in concern to the infanticidal practices said the hospital in their practices violated no law.
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.
It's so CLEAR it cannot be seen at all, how does that language in ANYWAY "threaten Roe." It is referring to a LIVE BORN CHILD, one outside of the womb. Not to mention EVEN if this legislation were to be anti abortion, Jane Roe would not be offended, she would be VERY happy since she is now a PROLIFE activist and hates people using her lawsuit to uphold the right to the homicide of child in the womb.
After reading Obama's speech in the Illinois Senate, in which he was the only one audacious enough to speak about this act that would protect the right of children born alive after failed abortion. Obama in his warped logic felt that by saying the fetus born alive were 'children" would result in the end of abortion (can't have that) so we cannot at all justify calling a fetus, even out of the womb a 'child' since he said the 14th amendment does not permit people to kill a child. Furthermore, Obama felt that if there was a second doctor called to take care of the child should it be BORN ALIVE, it would burden the mothers choice to have an abortion, obviously he has no concern at all, and he is implicitly implicating himself as being a proponent of infanticide. Since this time he has been trying to wash the record as to what happened with his infanticidal votes, including the claim that this vote was unneccesary since there were already existing laws against the infanticide practiced at the hospital in which the incident started, Christ's Hospital, which incidentally had Obama's pastor "Dr" Jeremiah Wright on the board as it was jointly controlled by Obama's denomination and a Lutheran group. So clearly Obama had some self interest in opposing this legislation. Also, Obama's denomination "United Church of Christ" was part of the few 'Christian' 'churches' that support abortion rights. But I digress, Obama's supports and infant-hating liberals claim the 1975 law 720 ILCS 510/6 already condemned the infanticide of said case, however what they will admit is that PROLIFE attorney General of Illinois in concern to the infanticidal practices said the hospital in their practices violated no law.
Wikipedia
In case I should be accused of plaguarizing Wikipedia, let me just say I write a lot on there, if it looks like I quoted something from it, search the history and check for my nick name 'theruteger.'
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Rebuttal to the the alleged Arian verses
There are several verses in scripture used since the time of the archheretical-Apostate Coptic priest Arius that have been used to push for the belief that Jesus was a man, and not God. Such groups to embrace this included later Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and several smaller cult groups. Even the offspring of the reformation, ignorant in part of the sacred traditions of the Apostolic Church which ceaseless upholds Christ's divinity fully, partially took away Christ's deity by believing Christ "emptied Himself" of His deity to become man, misunderstanding the words of St Paul in Philippians 2, subsequently this doctrine tried to creep up in Catholic schools, even after condemnation by venerable Pope Pius XII in AD 1951, by people such as von Balthasar.
But I go back to the "Arian" verses:
"for the Father is greater than I."--St John 14:28
This verse is true in the human nature of Christ, God the Father is not a man, He has no human nature, human nature is true only of Christ, Christ in His humanity is inferior to the Father, where as Christ in His deity is equal to the Father, this is actually Catholic dogma and is taught in Ecumenical councils.
"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."--St Mark 13:32/St Matthew 24:36
The misinterpretation of this verse is responsible for greater heresies, many draw from this Christ did not have the power to know the time of the End. The simple answer is this is a statement of Christ in His human nature which was not by its own nature omniscient and prescient of the future, only by union with the Word is this knowledge available. The surround context for this verse is Christ as the "Son of Man" not the "Son of God." Those who read carefully will see that Christ knew the events leading up to End, He was not ignorant of the hour in His Divinity. Christ did not want men to know the time of the End, but wanted them to be vigilant, He did not come to tell man the end of time (Acts 1:7).
"So He was not able to perform any mighty deed there"-St Mark 6:5
Many stop quoting there verse here, but the whole verse says He did do some mighty deeds: "So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them." Some comment that sometimes in Scripture that able/could means would (cf Genesis 37:4, St John 7:7). But the reason He was not able to do mighty deeds was because of a lack of faith. St Matthew's parallel verse states: "And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith." (St. Matthew 13:58) Perhaps St John Cassian expounded on this the best in the following:
"And Jesus advanced (in) wisdom and age and favor before God and man."-St Luke 2:52
The argument used is in sort 'If Jesus is God, then why does the bible say he 'grew' or 'advanced' in wisdom?"
The direct answer to that is that the Wisdom of God was being made manifest in Jesus in proportion to His growth in the physical body. Rather than go on on my own poorly stated response here are the Church Fathers on this particular verse:
St Jerome says likewise:
Here are some verses I found that were used in the Early Church to show Jesus is God Almighty, and is omniscient:
In short Christ is God and because He is of the same Nature as the Father, He has all the powers of the Father and is equal to the Father, and is omniscient, Christ as the Son of God, in His deity, was NEVER ignorant of ANYTHING, to assert otherwise to espouse a heretical, if not a position of apostasy from the Christian Faith.
To be continued...
But I go back to the "Arian" verses:
"for the Father is greater than I."--St John 14:28
This verse is true in the human nature of Christ, God the Father is not a man, He has no human nature, human nature is true only of Christ, Christ in His humanity is inferior to the Father, where as Christ in His deity is equal to the Father, this is actually Catholic dogma and is taught in Ecumenical councils.
"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."--St Mark 13:32/St Matthew 24:36
The misinterpretation of this verse is responsible for greater heresies, many draw from this Christ did not have the power to know the time of the End. The simple answer is this is a statement of Christ in His human nature which was not by its own nature omniscient and prescient of the future, only by union with the Word is this knowledge available. The surround context for this verse is Christ as the "Son of Man" not the "Son of God." Those who read carefully will see that Christ knew the events leading up to End, He was not ignorant of the hour in His Divinity. Christ did not want men to know the time of the End, but wanted them to be vigilant, He did not come to tell man the end of time (Acts 1:7).
"So He was not able to perform any mighty deed there"-St Mark 6:5
Many stop quoting there verse here, but the whole verse says He did do some mighty deeds: "So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them." Some comment that sometimes in Scripture that able/could means would (cf Genesis 37:4, St John 7:7). But the reason He was not able to do mighty deeds was because of a lack of faith. St Matthew's parallel verse states: "And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith." (St. Matthew 13:58) Perhaps St John Cassian expounded on this the best in the following:
"But among others the unfathomable depth of Christ's beneficence was so stopped up, that it was said: And Jesus could do there no mighty works because of their unbelief. [Mark 6:5-6] And so the bounty of God is actually shaped according to the capacity of man's faith, so that to one it is said: According to your faith be it unto you: [Matthew 9:29] and to another: Go your way, and as you have believed so be it unto you; [Matthew 8:13] to another Be it unto you according as you will, [Matthew 15:28] and again to another: Your faith has made you whole. [Luke 18:42]"
"And Jesus advanced (in) wisdom and age and favor before God and man."-St Luke 2:52
The argument used is in sort 'If Jesus is God, then why does the bible say he 'grew' or 'advanced' in wisdom?"
The direct answer to that is that the Wisdom of God was being made manifest in Jesus in proportion to His growth in the physical body. Rather than go on on my own poorly stated response here are the Church Fathers on this particular verse:
"Do not think to yourself, "How can God grow?" "How can he who gives grace to angels and to men receive fresh wisdom?" Rather reflect upon the great skill with which we are initiated into his mystery. For the wise Evangelist did not introduce the Word in his abstract and incorporeal nature. He says of him that "he increased in stature and wisdom and grace," [Luke 2:52] but after having shown that he was born in the flesh of a woman and took our likeness, he then assigns to him these human attributes. Only then does he call a child and say that he grew in stature, as his body grew little by little, in obedience to corporeal laws. So he is said to have increased in wisdom, not as receiving fresh supplies of wisdom. God is perceived by the understanding to be entirely perfect in all things and altogether incapable of being destitute of any attribute suitable to the Godhead. So God the Word gradually manifested his wisdom proportionally to the age which the body had attained.
The body then advances in stature, and the soul, in wisdom. The divine nature is incapable of increase in neither one nor the other, seeing that the Word of God is all perfect. With good reason he connected the increase of wisdom with the growth of the bodily stature, because the divine nature revealed its own wisdom in proportion to the measure of the bodily growth."--St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 5, (CGSL 36-64**)
St Jerome says likewise:
"How does he who is Wisdom receive understanding? "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men."[Luke 2:52] This means not so much that the Son was instructed by the Father but that his human nature was instructed by his own divinity. There is the seer's prophecy of him who blossomed from the root of Jesse," The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and of understanding."--St Jerome, Homily on Psalm 15(16) (FC 57:26**)
Here are some verses I found that were used in the Early Church to show Jesus is God Almighty, and is omniscient:
"His [Jesus’] disciples said, "Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech. Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God."—John 16:29-30 (St Augustine says this means Christ is omniscient in Tractate 103)
…Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You..."—John 21:17
“…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 1:24
"..Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."—Colossians 2:3
In short Christ is God and because He is of the same Nature as the Father, He has all the powers of the Father and is equal to the Father, and is omniscient, Christ as the Son of God, in His deity, was NEVER ignorant of ANYTHING, to assert otherwise to espouse a heretical, if not a position of apostasy from the Christian Faith.
To be continued...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Hindu Extremism
The news constantly reports on Islamic extremism, that they are hell bent on destroying the West, and America in particular, though in reality they are focused more on expelling American influence in the Middle East, though by doing so they are only making it greater (idiots). What is not reported is the rise of Hindu extremism in India. The following paragraph was published in Zenit, a Catholic news outlet, reports:
Over a period of three days in August 2008 there were 11 death caused by Hindu extremists, particularly against Christian clerics. One of which was Father Thomas Pandippally, who was found murdered "with his hands and legs broken, 18 stab wounds inflicted on his body and his eyes gouged out."
Other reports claim the Hindu mobs sought the continuation of the Hindu caste system.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India also reports and condemns a bombing in New Delhi which killed 22 and injured dozens.
Hindu persecution of Christians is as old Christianity itself. Contrary to the belief it was introduced in India by the Portuguese, it was already long established there. The first report of Hindu extremism against Christians was against the excellent Apostle St Thomas, peace unto him, who is also called Jude in Syrian tradition and some other patriastic writings. St Hippolytus of Rome, peace unto him, an early 3rd century priest, Church Father and martyr, wrote in his discourse "On the End of the World":
St Ephraim the Syrian, 4th century poetic Church Father and Doctor of the Church has the Devil, in Ephraim's 42nd Nisibene hymn, as saying: "The Apostle whom I slew in India," in reference to St Thomas.
So obviously India is a country traditionally resistant to Christianity, if not hostile to evangelization. This is not completely the fault of the Indian people, as it was also political, as India was hostile to Westerners, wanting to keep the Roman empire at bay. Not to mention the myriad of Indian languages certainly did not facilitate evangelization, perhaps the only effect means was sending saints to perform miracles and do works of charity. Though its a wonder, why would the mobs attack people that want to help them, why attack people that work at orphanages? Isn't the Venerable Mother Teresa a national hero there? Yet they now many are seeking to harm Christians?
To be continued....
The Indian state of Orissa has been the scene of a spate of anti-Christian violence that intensified at the end of August after a Hindu leader, Swami Laxmananada Saraswati, was killed. Extremists placed the blame for his death on Christians. In fact, the eastern Indian state has long been plagued by Christian-Hindu violence, as Christian missionaries work with poor tribal peoples of the region and Hindus accuse them of forcing or bribing conversions.
Over a period of three days in August 2008 there were 11 death caused by Hindu extremists, particularly against Christian clerics. One of which was Father Thomas Pandippally, who was found murdered "with his hands and legs broken, 18 stab wounds inflicted on his body and his eyes gouged out."
Other reports claim the Hindu mobs sought the continuation of the Hindu caste system.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India also reports and condemns a bombing in New Delhi which killed 22 and injured dozens.
Hindu persecution of Christians is as old Christianity itself. Contrary to the belief it was introduced in India by the Portuguese, it was already long established there. The first report of Hindu extremism against Christians was against the excellent Apostle St Thomas, peace unto him, who is also called Jude in Syrian tradition and some other patriastic writings. St Hippolytus of Rome, peace unto him, an early 3rd century priest, Church Father and martyr, wrote in his discourse "On the End of the World":
And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spears at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.
St Ephraim the Syrian, 4th century poetic Church Father and Doctor of the Church has the Devil, in Ephraim's 42nd Nisibene hymn, as saying: "The Apostle whom I slew in India," in reference to St Thomas.
So obviously India is a country traditionally resistant to Christianity, if not hostile to evangelization. This is not completely the fault of the Indian people, as it was also political, as India was hostile to Westerners, wanting to keep the Roman empire at bay. Not to mention the myriad of Indian languages certainly did not facilitate evangelization, perhaps the only effect means was sending saints to perform miracles and do works of charity. Though its a wonder, why would the mobs attack people that want to help them, why attack people that work at orphanages? Isn't the Venerable Mother Teresa a national hero there? Yet they now many are seeking to harm Christians?
To be continued....
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why not to be pro 'choice'
Foreword:
An essay on abortion that I wrote in my freshmen year of college for English Critical Thinking in 2008. In the California election there will be 12 Propositions in 2008, among which is Prop 8, which any good willed person should support as a yes vote is for parental notifications for minors seeking to procure an abortion. And Prop 4 should like be voted with a yes to define marriage solely between male and female not unnatural, unfruitful pseudo unions, of which I will later address.
It is interesting to note that the Democratic party has fallen from its defense of life positions of the early 70s and prior. A modern proponent of abortion today is the nominal Catholic Edward 'Ted' Kennedy (who is a candidate for a direct, formal excommunication, rather than his latae sentae excommunication), who asserts abortion is a woman's right, contrary to his position in the early 70s where he believed his generation would be known for its defense of life from the beginning of conception. See here.
In this current election Democratic Presidental candidate Barack H. Obama has an extremely proabortion voting record, even to the point of tolerating infantcide, allowing the death of a born child by allowing the child to die in a hospital table that is already born and survived a failed abortion. His justification at the time as an Illinois legislature was that by recognizing a baby that survived an abortion as a "person" would lead to anti abortion legislation, since the 14th Amendment does not permit killing people. To see a page that links to government pages that reveal Obama's attitude and voting record on abortion and infanticide see here. Barack Obama would be a disasterous pick for President, in an address to Planned Parenthood, a major abortion and contraceptive provider, that funds candidates for their antifetus legislative votes, which is hostile to human life, stated that his FIRST act as President would be signing PROABORTION legislation: "The first thing I would do as President is, is, sign the Freedom of Choice Act." To see the video montage of Barack Obama on abortion go here
God hates abortion and infanticide, Exodus 1 says the midwives in Eygpt did not do the infanticide since "they feared God." Not to mention many times in scripture the shedding of innocent blood is condemned.
It is also interesting to note that the early feminists were opposed to abortion, and believed that women who had them procured would have to answer to God, bearing the guilt of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose Choice?
Every year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide (Brown 13). Abortion is a divisive issue that has split the United States in half since the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade, which made first trimester abortion a right for women. The Supreme Court in this case was presented with the case of a Texas woman, Norma McCorvey, who used the pseudonym Jane Roe, who had sued her state to allow her to have an abortion because she felt a need for one as an unwed mother and a rape victim (McCorvey v Hill 1). The Supreme Court ruled in her favor and consequentially all 50 states legalized abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy with the second trimester being regulated by each state. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade, abortion has been made a method of birth control in the United States. There have been several million abortions, with an abortion rate of about one in three pregnancies (Abortion in the United States- Statistics 1). Twenty years after she won her case in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey had a change in conscience and deeply regretted what she had done and join the prolife cause. She admitted that she had not been raped even went as far as to say rape is not a valid reason for abortion, in addition she stated she did not anticipate “abortions as a form of birth control” (The Norman Transcript 1) would occur from the suit. She then attempted to overturn Roe v. Wade by reopening the case before 5th District court and the Supreme Court by arguing that abortion was harmful to a woman’s health, but it was too late and the Supreme Court refused to hear her case in 2005 (McCorvey v. Hill 1). The policy of legal abortions on demand as a woman’s right is flawed and should be discontinued. The reasoning for allowing abortion is faulty and the evidence is against the prochoice agenda on grounds of logic, statistics, and metaphysics.
Many feminists since the passage of Roe v. Wade such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) have pushed abortion as a woman’s right by stating the fetus is part of a woman’s body among other arguments. However, many feminist groups ignore or downplay that the original feminist movement in America and Britain were vehemently opposed to abortions and frequently referred to it as murder. When asked whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded, “'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death,” she then continues men must help prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty (Anthony 4). Today there is one feminist group who seeks to uphold the views of the original feminists such as Anthony, they call themselves Feminists For Life, whose motto is “Refuse to Choose, Women Deserve Better than Abortion” (feministsforlife.org 1). Many who are “pro-choice” insist that the fetus is simply part of a woman’s body and the abortion of the fetus is comparable to surgery to remove a tumor, after all how can you kill that which is not a person? According to this logic the brain, heart, and body parts of the fetus in the womb are part of the woman’s body, in other words surplus organs. In other words, they justify abortion by redefining the person of the fetus as more of an object. This reasoning was rejected by prochoice advocate Julia Brown who said the fetus has different DNA, ergo is a different being (Brown 14). Brown’s justification for abortion fails because she utilizes the fallacy of appealing to tradition, where she states “Anglo-Saxon legal law has not traditionally seen the fetus as a legal person” (Brown 14). By declaring abortion to be the personal choice of a woman is making a choice for another person and denying the fetus any rights, including those enumerated in the Constitution, and those spoken of in the Declaration of Independence such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is ironic that women were previously seen in the past as being property of men and now it has been legally declared that fetuses are to be treated as the property of women! This was point on abortion was made in the time of Elizabeth Cady Stanton when she stated, “when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit” (Foster 1). This is the hypocrisy of the modern feminist movement— ignoring the wisdom of its founders. Others attempt make abortion acceptable since the fetus is uncapable of mental processes, and that in order to be able to claim a right such as life, an individual must be mentally capable of such a thought, consequentially they claim since a fetus does not have this metal capacity they have no right to life and there is no moral dilemma with aborting something with no rights (Lee 11). This may seem to be reasonable logic to some, but this logic falls apart when looking at those stages of life. Newborns have little mental capacity, not greatly different than days before in the womb. Similarly are some of the mentally handicapped. Does this mean newborns and the mentally handicapped do not deserve life and that anyone of low intelligence does not have a claim to life because of their capacities? Recent Congressional legislation voted that partial birth abortion, which is aborting a baby in process of the actual birth, to be “a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited,” and that has “risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives” (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 1). Yet why is this only said of partial birth abortion and not abortion in the second or even first trimester? Similarly a recent Supreme Court has ruled and upheld the ban on partial birth abortion and the majority opinion state it was infanticide and declared the baby to be “innocent” and undeserving of this “gruesome act” (Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart 2).
Based on empirical evidence and statistics abortion is shown to be a negative for society and should be criminalized. Research concerning abortion and breast cancer has revealed a strong correlation that abortion may be a good indicator as to whether the cancer will develop. Carroll in presenting his statistical findings states “when a woman is nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible” (Carroll 2). Then he states that actions following abortions may lead to more cancer causing actions “Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement therapy” (Carroll 3). Hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy Carroll states are also “conducive to breast cancer” (Carroll 2). These show that abortion is harmful to a woman’s health, and not just on the commonly cited emotional and psychological level. Furthermore, statistical surveys have revealed that the reasons for abortion including rape, incest, or a health concern with either the baby or mother accounted for at most 7% of all abortions in the United States in 2004 (Abortion in the United States 1). This is shocking since many prochoice organizations use cases of rape, incest, and pregnancy complications to justify keeping abortion legalized.
From a metaphysical point abortion is an indefensible action, unless severe misconstruing is used, for this reason those in favor of the current pro-abortion policy rebel against the use of metaphysical reasoning in debating often citing the establishment clause and the separation between Church and State. From the Judeo-Christian view abortion is rejected. Orthodox Jews to this day, though they believe the fetus does not receive a soul until 40 days after conception, are opposed to abortion (Freeman 1), citing God’s blessing and commandment in the book of Genesis to be “fruitful and multiple” (Genesis 1:28). In addition birth giving in Judaism is seen as the right of a mother and a cause for celebration. Christian has historically been strictly opposed to abortion particularly in Orthodox, Catholic, and conservative Protestant churches. Only within the last century have more liberal groups permitted abortions, yet the majority of them are opposed to it. Early Christian canon laws forbade abortion such as the first century text the Didache, “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 1). Several early Christian scholars stated damnation as the penalty for those involved in the abortions. Among common citations to justify why abortion is immoral “the LORD hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-7), “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Ultimately the reasoning against abortion is that the baby is a creation of God and since the baby is wrong to kill it since it is guilty of nothing worthy of death
Abortion has almost no difference from infanticide, only the age of the baby in question, and it is a terrible policy and should be ceased and outlawed particularly in this developed county. The reasoning used for permitting abortion is flawed in that it portrays the fetus as a threat to woman even in cases where the fetus poses no physical harm, it denies the right to live in those not mental capable of such, it makes the fetus an object and denies the humanity of the fetus and that the fetus has any rights and gives the decision for life and death in the hands of another person, it declares the fetus to be a piece of property reminiscent of how women were viewed as property, it ignores the feminist mothers who explicitly condemned the practice of abortion, it suggests that opposition to abortion constitutes as sexism, and it finally rejects the divine prerogative of God by refusing the fetus to grow and live until a natural death.
Works Cited
“Abortion in the United States- Statistics”. National Right to Life. Online: Google. 1. May 25, 2008.
Brown, Diana. “A Wiser View of Abortion.” Free Inquiry. Winter 1999. Rpt. in Should Abortion
Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003. 13-16.
Carroll, Patrick. “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors.” Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons. Fall 2007. 1-3. Online: Google Scholar. May 26, 2008.
Didache. Early Christian Writings. Online: Google. 1. May 27, 2008.
Fahling, Brian. “Why It’s Okay to Kill a Baby Outside the Womb.” May 10, 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003. 26-30.
Feminists For Life. Online: Yahoo!. May 26, 2008. 1.
Foster, Serrin. Pro-lifers Go Back to the Roots of Feminism. Zenit. Online: Yahoo!. May 27,
2008.
Freeman, Tzvi. “Does life begin at birth or conception?” May 27, 2008.
"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says "Pure and simple. I
lied." The Free Library. February 11, 1998. Online: Yahoo!. May 27, 2008. < http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says...-a055342471 > .
Kreeft, Peter. “The Apples Argument Against Abortion.” Crisis. December 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI:
Greenhaven. 2003. 35-43.
McCorvey v Hill. United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit. September 14, 2004.
Online: Google Scholar. 1-10. May 27, 2008.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. United States of America Congress. Online: Google Scholar.
Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart. United States Supreme Court. Online: Google Scholar. May 21, 2008.
An essay on abortion that I wrote in my freshmen year of college for English Critical Thinking in 2008. In the California election there will be 12 Propositions in 2008, among which is Prop 8, which any good willed person should support as a yes vote is for parental notifications for minors seeking to procure an abortion. And Prop 4 should like be voted with a yes to define marriage solely between male and female not unnatural, unfruitful pseudo unions, of which I will later address.
It is interesting to note that the Democratic party has fallen from its defense of life positions of the early 70s and prior. A modern proponent of abortion today is the nominal Catholic Edward 'Ted' Kennedy (who is a candidate for a direct, formal excommunication, rather than his latae sentae excommunication), who asserts abortion is a woman's right, contrary to his position in the early 70s where he believed his generation would be known for its defense of life from the beginning of conception. See here.
In this current election Democratic Presidental candidate Barack H. Obama has an extremely proabortion voting record, even to the point of tolerating infantcide, allowing the death of a born child by allowing the child to die in a hospital table that is already born and survived a failed abortion. His justification at the time as an Illinois legislature was that by recognizing a baby that survived an abortion as a "person" would lead to anti abortion legislation, since the 14th Amendment does not permit killing people. To see a page that links to government pages that reveal Obama's attitude and voting record on abortion and infanticide see here. Barack Obama would be a disasterous pick for President, in an address to Planned Parenthood, a major abortion and contraceptive provider, that funds candidates for their antifetus legislative votes, which is hostile to human life, stated that his FIRST act as President would be signing PROABORTION legislation: "The first thing I would do as President is, is, sign the Freedom of Choice Act." To see the video montage of Barack Obama on abortion go here
God hates abortion and infanticide, Exodus 1 says the midwives in Eygpt did not do the infanticide since "they feared God." Not to mention many times in scripture the shedding of innocent blood is condemned.
It is also interesting to note that the early feminists were opposed to abortion, and believed that women who had them procured would have to answer to God, bearing the guilt of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose Choice?
Every year 45 million of 175 million pregnancies result in abortion worldwide (Brown 13). Abortion is a divisive issue that has split the United States in half since the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade, which made first trimester abortion a right for women. The Supreme Court in this case was presented with the case of a Texas woman, Norma McCorvey, who used the pseudonym Jane Roe, who had sued her state to allow her to have an abortion because she felt a need for one as an unwed mother and a rape victim (McCorvey v Hill 1). The Supreme Court ruled in her favor and consequentially all 50 states legalized abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy with the second trimester being regulated by each state. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade, abortion has been made a method of birth control in the United States. There have been several million abortions, with an abortion rate of about one in three pregnancies (Abortion in the United States- Statistics 1). Twenty years after she won her case in Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey had a change in conscience and deeply regretted what she had done and join the prolife cause. She admitted that she had not been raped even went as far as to say rape is not a valid reason for abortion, in addition she stated she did not anticipate “abortions as a form of birth control” (The Norman Transcript 1) would occur from the suit. She then attempted to overturn Roe v. Wade by reopening the case before 5th District court and the Supreme Court by arguing that abortion was harmful to a woman’s health, but it was too late and the Supreme Court refused to hear her case in 2005 (McCorvey v. Hill 1). The policy of legal abortions on demand as a woman’s right is flawed and should be discontinued. The reasoning for allowing abortion is faulty and the evidence is against the prochoice agenda on grounds of logic, statistics, and metaphysics.
Many feminists since the passage of Roe v. Wade such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) have pushed abortion as a woman’s right by stating the fetus is part of a woman’s body among other arguments. However, many feminist groups ignore or downplay that the original feminist movement in America and Britain were vehemently opposed to abortions and frequently referred to it as murder. When asked whether or those who have abortions are guilty, and if there is any valid reason for an abortion Susan B. Anthony responded, “'Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death,” she then continues men must help prevent abortions or they themselves will be guilty (Anthony 4). Today there is one feminist group who seeks to uphold the views of the original feminists such as Anthony, they call themselves Feminists For Life, whose motto is “Refuse to Choose, Women Deserve Better than Abortion” (feministsforlife.org 1). Many who are “pro-choice” insist that the fetus is simply part of a woman’s body and the abortion of the fetus is comparable to surgery to remove a tumor, after all how can you kill that which is not a person? According to this logic the brain, heart, and body parts of the fetus in the womb are part of the woman’s body, in other words surplus organs. In other words, they justify abortion by redefining the person of the fetus as more of an object. This reasoning was rejected by prochoice advocate Julia Brown who said the fetus has different DNA, ergo is a different being (Brown 14). Brown’s justification for abortion fails because she utilizes the fallacy of appealing to tradition, where she states “Anglo-Saxon legal law has not traditionally seen the fetus as a legal person” (Brown 14). By declaring abortion to be the personal choice of a woman is making a choice for another person and denying the fetus any rights, including those enumerated in the Constitution, and those spoken of in the Declaration of Independence such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is ironic that women were previously seen in the past as being property of men and now it has been legally declared that fetuses are to be treated as the property of women! This was point on abortion was made in the time of Elizabeth Cady Stanton when she stated, “when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit” (Foster 1). This is the hypocrisy of the modern feminist movement— ignoring the wisdom of its founders. Others attempt make abortion acceptable since the fetus is uncapable of mental processes, and that in order to be able to claim a right such as life, an individual must be mentally capable of such a thought, consequentially they claim since a fetus does not have this metal capacity they have no right to life and there is no moral dilemma with aborting something with no rights (Lee 11). This may seem to be reasonable logic to some, but this logic falls apart when looking at those stages of life. Newborns have little mental capacity, not greatly different than days before in the womb. Similarly are some of the mentally handicapped. Does this mean newborns and the mentally handicapped do not deserve life and that anyone of low intelligence does not have a claim to life because of their capacities? Recent Congressional legislation voted that partial birth abortion, which is aborting a baby in process of the actual birth, to be “a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited,” and that has “risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives” (Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 1). Yet why is this only said of partial birth abortion and not abortion in the second or even first trimester? Similarly a recent Supreme Court has ruled and upheld the ban on partial birth abortion and the majority opinion state it was infanticide and declared the baby to be “innocent” and undeserving of this “gruesome act” (Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart 2).
Based on empirical evidence and statistics abortion is shown to be a negative for society and should be criminalized. Research concerning abortion and breast cancer has revealed a strong correlation that abortion may be a good indicator as to whether the cancer will develop. Carroll in presenting his statistical findings states “when a woman is nulliparous, an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible” (Carroll 2). Then he states that actions following abortions may lead to more cancer causing actions “Abortion can lead to prescription of hormonal contraceptives, and the mental health sequelae of abortion may lead to use of hormone replacement therapy” (Carroll 3). Hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy Carroll states are also “conducive to breast cancer” (Carroll 2). These show that abortion is harmful to a woman’s health, and not just on the commonly cited emotional and psychological level. Furthermore, statistical surveys have revealed that the reasons for abortion including rape, incest, or a health concern with either the baby or mother accounted for at most 7% of all abortions in the United States in 2004 (Abortion in the United States 1). This is shocking since many prochoice organizations use cases of rape, incest, and pregnancy complications to justify keeping abortion legalized.
From a metaphysical point abortion is an indefensible action, unless severe misconstruing is used, for this reason those in favor of the current pro-abortion policy rebel against the use of metaphysical reasoning in debating often citing the establishment clause and the separation between Church and State. From the Judeo-Christian view abortion is rejected. Orthodox Jews to this day, though they believe the fetus does not receive a soul until 40 days after conception, are opposed to abortion (Freeman 1), citing God’s blessing and commandment in the book of Genesis to be “fruitful and multiple” (Genesis 1:28). In addition birth giving in Judaism is seen as the right of a mother and a cause for celebration. Christian has historically been strictly opposed to abortion particularly in Orthodox, Catholic, and conservative Protestant churches. Only within the last century have more liberal groups permitted abortions, yet the majority of them are opposed to it. Early Christian canon laws forbade abortion such as the first century text the Didache, “You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 1). Several early Christian scholars stated damnation as the penalty for those involved in the abortions. Among common citations to justify why abortion is immoral “the LORD hates…hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-7), “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). Ultimately the reasoning against abortion is that the baby is a creation of God and since the baby is wrong to kill it since it is guilty of nothing worthy of death
Abortion has almost no difference from infanticide, only the age of the baby in question, and it is a terrible policy and should be ceased and outlawed particularly in this developed county. The reasoning used for permitting abortion is flawed in that it portrays the fetus as a threat to woman even in cases where the fetus poses no physical harm, it denies the right to live in those not mental capable of such, it makes the fetus an object and denies the humanity of the fetus and that the fetus has any rights and gives the decision for life and death in the hands of another person, it declares the fetus to be a piece of property reminiscent of how women were viewed as property, it ignores the feminist mothers who explicitly condemned the practice of abortion, it suggests that opposition to abortion constitutes as sexism, and it finally rejects the divine prerogative of God by refusing the fetus to grow and live until a natural death.
Works Cited
“Abortion in the United States- Statistics”. National Right to Life. Online: Google. 1. May 25, 2008.
Brown, Diana. “A Wiser View of Abortion.” Free Inquiry. Winter 1999. Rpt. in Should Abortion
Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 2003. 13-16.
Carroll, Patrick. “The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors.” Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons. Fall 2007. 1-3. Online: Google Scholar. May 26, 2008.
Didache. Early Christian Writings. Online: Google. 1. May 27, 2008.
Fahling, Brian. “Why It’s Okay to Kill a Baby Outside the Womb.”
Feminists For Life. Online: Yahoo!. May 26, 2008. 1.
Foster, Serrin. Pro-lifers Go Back to the Roots of Feminism. Zenit. Online: Yahoo!. May 27,
2008.
Freeman, Tzvi. “Does life begin at birth or conception?” May 27, 2008.
"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says "Pure and simple. I
lied." The Free Library. February 11, 1998. Online: Yahoo!. May 27, 2008. < http://www.thefreelibrary.com/"Jane Roe" Tells True Story Behind Roe v. Wade Norma McCorvey Says...-a055342471 > .
Kreeft, Peter. “The Apples Argument Against Abortion.” Crisis. December 2000. Rpt. in Should Abortion Rights Be Restricted?. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. Farmington Hills, MI:
Greenhaven. 2003. 35-43.
McCorvey v Hill. United States Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit. September 14, 2004.
Online: Google Scholar. 1-10. May 27, 2008.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. United States of America Congress. Online: Google Scholar.
Syllabus of Gonzalez vs. Carhart. United States Supreme Court. Online: Google Scholar. May 21, 2008.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
WMD's & Iraq
As many know, the War in Iraq, or as I sometimes call the Second Gulf War, was initiated on the assertion that Saddam Husseine, President/Dictator of Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Evidence produced to prove this was proved to be false and a cheap fabrication, such as the Roman documents, which claimed Iraq purchased 'yellow cake uranium' from Niger. In addition there was speculation and claims the Iraqis were involved with Al-Qaeda and the September 11, 2001 plane high jackings which resulted in the deaths of thousands, although none of the hijacks were Iraqi, if anything the biggest portion of them were Saudis. Subsequently, the United Nation had inspectors sent to Iraq to investigate as to whether or not he was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, Husseine kicked out the inspectors and October 16, 2002 the United States Congress voted to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" (H.J.RES.114).
The authorization for action had the approval (aye) of 215 Republican member of the House of Representatives, and 81 Democrats. The 'nay' votes were 6 Republicans, 126 Democrats and 1 Independant. Whereas 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat did not vote at all in the House. Yielding a sum of 296 ayes, 133 nays, and 3 'pff uh dunnoes'. In the Senate it was approved by 77 ayes, 48 of which were Republicans: including current Presidential candidate Arizona Senator John S. McCain III). And 29 Democrats: including former Presidential Candidate, and Masschusetts Senator John F. Kerry (an excommunicated Catholic); New York Senator & former Presidential Hillary Rodham Clinton (aka Hellary Dennis Rodman Clinton); and California Senator Diane Feinstein. Of course, all this action for war was pushed by Republican President George W. Bush.
This occured nearly 6 years ago, and the United States is still at war with Iraq, though the violence has declined. As of July 2008, 4,119 Americans died in Iraq, and War related deaths for Iraqis has ranged from 50,000-1,000,000+. The wars popularity grealty diminished when much of the intelligence reports proved to be false, forgeries, and when WMDs were not found. Religious persecution of Christians, and small religious minorities has increased, not to mention ethnic minorities like the Kurds. One of the most infamous murders was that of the martyr, the late Chaldean Rite Archbishop, His Excellency Monsignor ܦܘܠܘܣ ܦ̮ܪܔ ܪܚܘ (Paulos Faraj Rahho), Archbishop of the Eparchy of Mosul (peace unto him) (3). He was murdered by Islamic extremists, who killed along with him, his body guard and drive. Under the rule of Saddam Husseine Christians had more protection, and the the people were united in their fear of Saddam Husseine.
Despite all these evils occuring, there were a few positives. Iraqi President Saddam Husseine was finally captured and executed for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Well I guess that's all I can come up with now...
Now in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some assert that WMDs have been found such as the 500 chemical weapons found since the start of the war, however they were said to be only for provisional use, and for road side bombs, as it was in an imperfect state, this being reported by FOX News (4). It also should be noted it was at first asserted that Saddam Husseine was in possesion of nuclear weapons, not chemical. MSNBC reports that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" were transported out of Iraq, which were the remnant of Saddam Husseine's nuclear program (5).
CBS news interviewed the FBI interrogator of Saddam Husseine, George Piro, who said: " [Saddam] told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq." And states that Saddam Husseine feared Iran and wanted to keep hidden that he had no WMDs so as to avoid an Iranian invasion saying "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,"(6).
To be continued....
(3)-Catholic News: Pope calls death of Iraqi archbishop 'act of inhuman violence' http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801421.htm
(4)-FOX News: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(5)-MSNBC News: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
(6)-CBS News: Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml
The authorization for action had the approval (aye) of 215 Republican member of the House of Representatives, and 81 Democrats. The 'nay' votes were 6 Republicans, 126 Democrats and 1 Independant. Whereas 2 Republicans, and 1 Democrat did not vote at all in the House. Yielding a sum of 296 ayes, 133 nays, and 3 'pff uh dunnoes'. In the Senate it was approved by 77 ayes, 48 of which were Republicans: including current Presidential candidate Arizona Senator John S. McCain III). And 29 Democrats: including former Presidential Candidate, and Masschusetts Senator John F. Kerry (an excommunicated Catholic); New York Senator & former Presidential Hillary Rodham Clinton (aka Hellary Dennis Rodman Clinton); and California Senator Diane Feinstein. Of course, all this action for war was pushed by Republican President George W. Bush.
This occured nearly 6 years ago, and the United States is still at war with Iraq, though the violence has declined. As of July 2008, 4,119 Americans died in Iraq, and War related deaths for Iraqis has ranged from 50,000-1,000,000+. The wars popularity grealty diminished when much of the intelligence reports proved to be false, forgeries, and when WMDs were not found. Religious persecution of Christians, and small religious minorities has increased, not to mention ethnic minorities like the Kurds. One of the most infamous murders was that of the martyr, the late Chaldean Rite Archbishop, His Excellency Monsignor ܦܘܠܘܣ ܦ̮ܪܔ ܪܚܘ (Paulos Faraj Rahho), Archbishop of the Eparchy of Mosul (peace unto him) (3). He was murdered by Islamic extremists, who killed along with him, his body guard and drive. Under the rule of Saddam Husseine Christians had more protection, and the the people were united in their fear of Saddam Husseine.
Despite all these evils occuring, there were a few positives. Iraqi President Saddam Husseine was finally captured and executed for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Well I guess that's all I can come up with now...
Now in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some assert that WMDs have been found such as the 500 chemical weapons found since the start of the war, however they were said to be only for provisional use, and for road side bombs, as it was in an imperfect state, this being reported by FOX News (4). It also should be noted it was at first asserted that Saddam Husseine was in possesion of nuclear weapons, not chemical. MSNBC reports that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" were transported out of Iraq, which were the remnant of Saddam Husseine's nuclear program (5).
CBS news interviewed the FBI interrogator of Saddam Husseine, George Piro, who said: " [Saddam] told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq." And states that Saddam Husseine feared Iran and wanted to keep hidden that he had no WMDs so as to avoid an Iranian invasion saying "It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,"(6).
To be continued....
(3)-Catholic News: Pope calls death of Iraqi archbishop 'act of inhuman violence' http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801421.htm
(4)-FOX News: Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
(5)-MSNBC News: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
(6)-CBS News: Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)