Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Morgentaler regretted his wife's abortion


 
 
From 1983, an interview between Bernard Nathanson and Henry Morgentaler.  Both men were abortion doctors; both men aborted their own children; both men regretted those abortions.  Nathanson changed from pro-abortion to pro-life and later converted to the Catholic faith.  He said he carried the weight of all those deaths on his conscience.  Morgentaler did not express remorse for his life, but died while a lawsuit was still pending in New Brunswick to allow federal funding for his abortion clinic in Fredericton.
 
 
 
 
 


Monday, November 24, 2014

Obama ruling by "fiat" rather than by democratic process


Last Thursday night, President Obama issued his executive order that would grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Not calling it an "executive order", but a presidential memo, it is the same thing.

Obama stated that he had waited for Congress to present him with an immigration bill, and that they had simply not done this. No mention of the fact that the Democrats held both the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first two years of his presidency and that they had done nothing on the immigration issue during that time, when they had the ability to do so easily. Some Democrats offer the reason that Obama was intent on getting his health care bill through and that it was the pressing issue of those first years. This implies that he can't do two things at the same time, which was disproved recently in China when he was caught on camera, walking and chewing gum simultaneously.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/10/obama-gum-chewing-riles-some-chinese/18801757/

Over the weekend, a headline caught my eye - that the Congress of American Bishops had approved of Obama's move on immigration.

It has long been known that the Catholic Congregation of Bishops wants an overhaul of the immigration law, and there is no doubt that such an overhaul is necessary. However, to approve of what Obama did on Thursday is to approve the ends, regardless of the means.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/politics/article/on-immigration-catholic-bishops-top-aide-lobbies-obama-from-the-left-5841793887240192

President Obama does not have the patience to wait for the newly elected members of the Senate and House of Representatives (both of which are now Republican majorities) and so he rammed through his executive order without even trying to work with them. Obama, more than any other president, has no will to work with the other side. As has been stated time and again, he is an ideologue who does not stoop to deal with the reality of issues. He prefers to rule by fiat.

Is this fair? Scott Johnson points out something that should be obvious:

The proposed executive action on immigration (or whatever name you want to give it) will allow [illegal aliens] who have US citizen or green-card children and who have been here for five years to apply for some kind of quasi-status and open market work authorization. That would allow them to work for a period of time at any employer, the authorization presumably renewable until they decide to leave or have an option for US permanent resident status (green card status). This, the administration tells us, is fair and just and Biblical – yada/yada.
 But this option is explicitly NOT available to those in the US in a valid legal status. There are millions of people in the US who have temporary status – as students or temporary workers or researchers or as investors (lots of Koreans own businesses with E-2 investor visas, for example). These people – many of them have US citizen children and have been here five years. These people who have been here legally and not violated their immigration status – these people are explicitly NOT eligible for open market work authorization, renewable indefinitely.
 You must be in violation of the law to benefit from this provision.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/when-youre-strange.php

Meanwhile, the newly elected Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, aims to launch a lawsuit against the federal government for acting in an unconstitutional manner. And there is plenty of evidence that he is correct. Obama himself has been recorded over twenty times, stating that he cannot change the law on immigration by himself and that it has to be changed by the legislature. Suddenly ten lawyers were found who told him that he could change the law by himself and so he went ahead.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/11/23/Greg-Abbott-Obamas-Amnesty-is-Epitome-of-Lawlessness

But the consequences of his actions will be dire. Over the summer, 70 thousand children came across the border into Mexico. Most of them had been brought over by crooks who take large sums of money from their parents to bring them into the US, where they will be united with relatives who are already here. Each month, one thousand illegal immigrants come across the Texas border and the state of Texas is left to deal with the health issues of these people, and the task of relocating them somewhere. They have been told not to send them back. And who could do such a thing, knowing that they would face great danger to their lives if they were to be returned to Mexico?

The immigrants are coming from Mexico, Central and South America. And now a large group of Cubans are awaiting their flight to the US, since they feel reassured by Obama that they will be welcomed and cared for upon their entry into the US. 

Yes, the immigration law is broken but executive order is not the way to fix it.

People coming to the US from countries, where their lives are in danger from drug cartel overlords, are seeking a country where the rule of law works. It is ironic that they come to the US, where the rule of law has just been overturned by the President himself.  How long will the US remain the country they believe it to be, if the power of the president is allowed to run unchecked? What is to stop the next president, who may be Republican, from doing a similar thing on another issue?

As Ronald Reagan once said:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”    

The issue of immigration in the US is not just an issue about the 11 million illegal immigrants who have sought a new home in a new country. It is an issue about the overreach of the executive branch of government, something that the founders of the Constitution fought hard to prevent. The three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial are held in a fine balance in order to preserve individual freedoms. The USA is the only country in the entire world that is founded on such a principle of individual freedom.

What is at stake here is the very loss of that precious freedom by a President who thinks that he knows better than the elected officials of the government. The image of him chewing gum shows him as he really is, a man who is insolent toward those for whom he has no respect. His latest actions show that it is not just nations abroad that he does not respect; he does not respect his own country and its citizens.








Friday, November 21, 2014

Why this method of birth control?



Essure birth control, manufactured by Bayer, is a permanent non-surgical method of birth control. Metal coils are inserted into a woman's fallopian tubes, with the result that the woman's body produces tissue that grows through the coils, thus blocking the tubes.  Eggs cannot travel down the tubes and no fertilization can occur.

Apparently, there are over 12,000 followers in a support group on a private Facebook page. The problem is that these women who have had problems with the method (from pain to migraine headaches to early menopause, cysts, and even organ puncture) cannot sure because Essure was given an FDA pre-emption.
Robert Jenner, an attorney with Janet, Jenner and Suggs in Pikesville said that “the idea behind preemption is that the companies that make approved devices get protection from the FDA and can’t be sued because the agency so heavily scrutinizes their devices.”
Why would a woman resort to this method of birth control? Since the method is permanent, why wouldn't she opt instead for a tubal ligation? (not that I am advocating that method either, just asking the obvious question).  The very idea of metal coils inserted into a body is a horrific idea. I don't see why anyone would consent to this.
We deserve healthcare that won’t hurt us. Families deserve better than having unexpected medical problems they could have avoided. And ultimately, women deserve better than tiny metal coils that ruin their lives.
http://liveactionnews.org/essure-birth-control-is-ruining-womens-lives/







Bill who? let's get it right


 So if we are dredging up rape accusations against formerly famous old man, why not talk about the ones surrounding a former president who still wields considerable influence and who might, God help us, end up in the White House again in two years?

Matt Walsh on the allegations against Bill Cosby, while Bill Clinton gets a pass.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/bill-clinton-is-an-alleged-rapist-too-why-arent-you-outraged-about-that/










Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Thank you to Ezra Levant


When the city council of Nanaimo banned a Christian group from holding a conference, Ezra Levant made the issue known. He called for a petition to let the city know that they did not have the right to ban groups on the basis of religious identity.

When that didn't work, Ezra headed up a move to hire a lawyer who would sue the city for its actions. Well, that got results and the city caved. And the recent election brought in the only councillor who opposed this anti-Christian action and made him the mayor. 

Kudos to Ezra Levant who fights for freedom of religion. Who would do this if Ezra didn't?

Watch the video at the following link. 


http://www.ezralevant.com/nanaimos-new-mayor/








Saturday, November 15, 2014

Citing the Law is No Argument


This afternoon a young man came to the door, canvassing for Megan Leslie, the NDP member of Parliament here in Halifax. 

I told him immediately that I could not support the New Democratic Party because they are pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage, neither position I support. He asked if I would reveal which party I did support. And I told him that my husband and I often have to destroy our ballot because there is no one for whom we can vote.

He then said "well, I guess you don't want one of these cards?"  and I said no. As he turned to leave, his last words were "well, the Supreme Court has decided that these are so." I didn't have a chance to reply as he left quickly.  I wished he had stayed for a moment longer, or perhaps more, because what I wanted to say was that the law is no defense of a moral position.

There have been many cases of bad laws throughout history. One has only to recall the life of William Wilberforce who spent his entire adult life, from his early twenties until the day he died, working to overturn the slave trade in England. And he finally succeeded, a lifetime battle of some 40-50 years.

So many people have no idea of history. They do not know that the slave trade was legal, that slaves were not considered "persons" under the law, that women were not considered "persons" either. And now the unborn are not considered "persons". Is it not possible that there will come a day when we also look at that law and say that it is a bad law?

I have heard this defense of abortion many times. While on the vigil of 40 Days for Life, many people who passed by would say that abortion was legal and that we should just get over it. But there is no evidence that what man passes as law is also moral. In fact, the evidence shows that the opposite has been the case in a number of important issues. 

Saying that the decision of nine judges in one country is the reason why something is therefore right is ridiculous. Why do those nine people have the right to determine what is moral for the rest of the population?  And in the case of abortion in Canada, those nine judges did not say that abortion was the legal right of women, but they removed the barriers to abortion granting women access to abortion throughout their entire pregnancy. Those judges also turned the issue back to Parliament and said that the House of Commons had the duty to impose some restrictions on abortion, something that they never did.

So much ignorance surrounds this subject. And so many people simply don't want to hear anything that isn't the mainstream opinion. I hope this young man thinks more seriously about this issue and does some searching on his own. It is truly frightening that our future is in the hands of people like him, who have swallowed the party line on this issue and many others.






Crescendo -



I heard that this was produced in part by Justin Bieber's mom, who had Justin as an unmarried teen.
Short, powerful, just 15 minutes, worth watching.