Homosexual Marriage "Saved From Redefintion" -- ABC News Doesn't Understand Fairness, History, or Human Biology

Robert Knight posted this entry (with links and a hat tip to Matt Barber at Concerned Women for America) over at NewsBusters:

After the Massachusetts Legislature voted to crush the marriage amendment ballot measure yesterday, the networks largely ignored the story. But ABC’s Web site carried this headline:

Gay Marriage Safe in Massachusetts: A Vote to Redefine Marriage as a Union Between a Man and a Woman Was Defeated

To ABCNews.com, defining marriage the traditional way is a radical “redefinition” of the institution. Is it any wonder that a majority of the American people, according to the National Cultural Values Survey, believe the news media are a major factor in America’s moral decline?

Bush Praises Pro-Lifers as "Fearless Shepherds of the Innocent and the Unborn"

KCTV, the Kansas City ABC affiliate, reports here on President Bush's remarks to those gathered in that city this weekend for the National Right to Life annual conference. Bush praised pro-life advocates as "fearless shepherds of the innocent and the unborn."

Furthermore, the president, a stalwart and outspoken pro-lifer himself, told the group, "You've been faithful stewards of our Declaration of Independence's promise that all people have an inalienable right to life," and "you have helped more of our citizens understand that the mark of a great nation is the respect that we give to every single human life."

"I ask you to continue to work with respect and civility to appeal to the hearts and conscience of a good nation, so we can encourage more Americans to embrace a culture of life."

Thank you, Mr. President. We will.

Anything Decent on TV Tonight?

A small, bipartisan group of House lawmakers is pushing a bill designed to help parents shield their children from indecent and violent material on television.

Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska) and Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois) have introduced the "Family and Consumer Choice Act." The bill would mandate that cable and satellite TV providers either adhere to decency standards during family-time viewing hours, offer a family package option that provides news and sports, or provide an "a la carte" option for consumers. The a la carte option would allow consumers to pick stations they no longer want to receive and get a refund or credit on their bill.

Representative Fortenberry says the measure would give families greater control over their cable bills. "Basically this attempts to introduce free-market principles back into television programming," the congressman explains. "And I think it may actually expand the base of consumers who may be interested in purchasing television [programming]," he adds, "because 70 percent of all Americans say there's too much sex and violence on TV -- and this gets at the heart of that, but [it] also allows consumers more choice."

The bill, which Fortenberry acknowledges faces an uphill battle, is also sponsored by Representatives Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) and Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina). Fortenberry says there is no good reason for Congress to resist the proposal.

"Americans deserve better control over their bills as well as [over] their choice of television content," he states. "[T]his is a measured, reasonable, balanced approach to providing more choice, more marketplace ideas in the television market."

Fortenberry says there is more momentum than ever in favor of cable choice, but cautions "there are very strong forces at work against" the measure.

I encourage Vital Signs Blog visitors to let Congressman Fortenberry and his colleagues know of your appreciation for their efforts and, of course, please pass the word on to those "dimmer bulbs" who have yet to get behind this long-overdue legislation. Here's a great page for appropriate contact info.

Congressmen with Daughters Are More Pro-Abortion

Debbie Schlussel has a different take on the new study showing that congressmen with daughters are more solidly pro-abortion than their colleagues. Check it out over here.

Remembering Cuba's Catastrophe...And Learning From It

...Over the years, they've never stopped watching "el Comandante" -- or warning us about him. At the same time, they've been criticized by people who say that Castro is really no threat. Current events in South America, though, have proven that we should have been listening to our Cuban-Americans friends.

Last week, when Hugo Chavez officially killed press freedoms, even a big part of Venezuela's far left seemed to realize that they’d created a monster. Unfortunately, it may be too late. He's already packed Venezuela's high court, legislature and military with his loyalists. Right now, he's operating without any check or balance.

During his rise, Venezuelans say that Chavez spent hours a day on the phone with Castro. Additionally, Castro sent thousands of his Communist apparatchiks to help transition.

Venezuela from a free country to a totalitarian state. Without Cuban “help,” Venezuela wouldn’t be in the terrible mess it is today. Castro, after all, has been at this since the 1960's and he's given Chavez the benefit of his experience...

Read the rest of this radio transcript (from might-be Republican presidential nominee, Fred Thompson) right here.

Catholics (And The Rest Of Us Too) Should Cease All Support of Amnesty International

With its new stance supporting the legalization of abortion around the world, Amnesty International "has betrayed its mission," said Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, in an e-mail interview with the National Catholic Register.

National Catholic Register, based in North Haven, also quoted Jesuit Father Daniel Berrigan, an iconic figure in pacifist and human rights circles, repudiating the new Amnesty position. "One cannot support an organization financially or even individually that is contravening something very serious in our ethic," the priest said.

Cardinal Martino said, "I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission..."

The rest of this story (from Catholic Online) is here.

And here is the insipid response from Amnesty.

Belarus Human Rights Record Worsens...Yet Again

Shown here at left is the KGB headquarters in Minsk, an appropriate photo to go with this report from Radio Free Europe:

Adrian Severin, the UN Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on Belarus, on June 12 noted a steady deterioration in the human rights situation in Belarus in 2006, Belapan reported. Presenting his report in Geneva, Severin stressed that all his recommendations have been ignored by the Belarusian government, which he said has flatly refused to cooperate with him for three consecutive years. "The present report demonstrates that Belarus does not respect its obligations under the international human rights instruments to which it has adhered," Severin said.

Severin recommended that the UN Human Rights Council ask the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to immediately establish a group of legal experts "to investigate whether senior officials of the government of Belarus are responsible for the disappearances and murders of several politicians and journalists, and make concrete proposals for their prosecution, in order to bring to an end the impunity enjoyed by those involved in such crimes." Severin also recommended that the UN secretary-general launch an investigation into "the apparent involvement of senior [Belarusian] government officials in international organized crime and illegal arms sales."

Syarhey Aleynik, Belarus's permanent representative to the United Nations and other international organizations based in Geneva, called on the UN Human Rights Council to abolish the mandate of the special rapporteur on Belarus. According to Aleynik, Severin's report is a "product of an incompetent and politically prejudiced expert who is directly interested in creating a negative image of our country."

Next Goal of Mexico's Leftists? Legalizing Prostitution.

In the modern world, truth is quite frequently stranger than fiction...and more sinister. An example is the latest proposal by Mexico's "leftist party" (the A.P. reporter's phrase, not mine) to legalize prostitution. Notice that this group has already won victories in Mexico City in legalizing abortion and homosexual unions, all "part of their duty to society."

But the Democratic Revolution Party isn't completely devoid of moral scruples. After all, the bill it proposes would only legalize prostitution "in designated areas at least roughly 1,000 feet from schools, parks, churches and apartment complexes."

Ronald Reagan Knew the Power of the Cross

Western leaders searching for a long-term strategy to defend our civilization from fundamentalist Islam ought to reread the speech President Reagan delivered at the Berlin Wall 20 years ago this month.

It was neither democracy nor capitalism Reagan foresaw bringing down the wall. It was Christianity.

Reagan's demand that Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the wall was the defining sound-bite of that speech, but it was another passage that defined the core meaning of the Cold War.

Pondering what sustained Berliners, surrounded as they were by the Soviet menace, Reagan concluded: "Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront.

"Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere -- that sphere that towers over all Berlin -- the light makes the sign of the cross."

In Reagan's mind, their defining symbol was the wall, while ours was the cross. In any battle of faith and reason, our side would win.

"As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: 'This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality,'" said Reagan. "Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth."

And the wall did fall -- at the foot of the cross...

Read the rest of Terence Jeffrey's superb column, one that underscores the dramatic difference between Reagan's perceptions of the Cold War and the present administrations strategy in the Middle East, right here. Very good.

YMCA and Public School Team Up to Take Young Teens on a "Field Trip" to Abortion Clinic

And, of course, the student's parents were not informed. Nor were the charitable contributors and taxpayers whose money unwittingly supports such shenanigans. Here's the story from LifeNews.

Bush Wins One for Environmental Balance

Though few spoke about it and, of those who did, fewer still gave the credit where credit was due, George W. Bush scored a big win for environmental sanity at the G-8 summit. Therefore, do yourself a favor and read this Kimberly Strassel article over at the Wall Street Journal.

Why Does Hollywood Avoid Abortion?

For all the impulses to "push the envelope" on liberal causes felt by Hollywood, why does it generally avoid the issue of abortion? This article (originally from the Raleigh News and Observer) explores this provocative question...and rather fairly too. But I think the answer closest to the truth is this one:

Bill Brooks, executive director of the N.C. Family Policy Council, a conservative think tank, believes something darker is afoot: that Hollywood avoids abortion because it doesn’t want to remind people of its horrors. “They’re afraid that if people really know the truth about abortion, they’ll turn against it,” he said. “They don’t want to talk about it because they don’t want the rest of us thinking about it.”

A Shift in Attitudes About Stem Cell Controversies?

Today's must-read piece from Town Hall is Kathryn Jean Lopez's instructive column about what may well be a changing landscape in the stem cell/cloning controversies.

...As expected, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which authorizes funding on unused or frozen embryos in fertility clinics, passed in the House on June 7. But not only was it short of the votes it needed to override an expected presidential veto, it actually had six fewer votes than it did when the House voted on it in the last Congress. "Momentum is fading for proponents of embryonic stem-cell research," one pro-life House aide proclaimed. And how could it not be? Even as the House was focusing narrowly on embryo destruction, headlines trumpeted: "New Stem Cell Breakthrough Avoids Destroying Human Embryos"; "Biologists Make Skin Cells Work Like Stem Cells"; "Stem-Cell Advance May Skirt Ethical Debate."

It will take some time for these new facts to sink in -- to fight against the lie that scientific hope and success is only with the embryo-destructive research. In the same edition of The Washington Post in which we read "Scientists Use Skin To Create Stem Cells" and "Discovery Could Recast Debate," readers were also subjected to a flattering profile of cloning advocate Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat. DeGette is a secular saint for her tunnel-vision advocacy of embryonic-stem-cell research. Glaringly missing from the piece was any acknowledgment that George W. Bush, who would go on to veto the bill that funds embryo-destroying bill, is also for stem-cell research -- just not the one and only kind she wants.

If you are against funding one type of stem cell research -- the embryo-destroying kind -- that does not mean you are against stem-cell research. On the contrary, you're for the kind that actually works -- and that also happens to be free of the ethical hang-ups involved in the embryonic kind. What's to lose?

Embryonic stem-cell research is perfectly legal in the United States; all the debates have been over the government funding of it. With no federal ban on cloning, some states have provided funding for it under the guise of a "ban," setting up the distinction between reproductive cloning (creating an embryo to ultimately raise as a child) and research or therapeutic cloning (creating an embryo to use for medical purposes). In the end, though, the process is the same; in therapeutic cloning, you are cloning to kill.

Leftist Speakers Dominate (7 to 1) This Year's Commencement Platforms

Okay, so it's no surprise, but unless conservatives take a careful, concerted aim at the leftist monopoly of "public" education, the slide of Western culture into incompetence, irrationality and immorality will continue.

Here's the first few paragraphs from a very good report on this profound imbalance from the Young America's Foundation:

Using U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the nation’s top 100 colleges and universities, Young America’s Foundation found that for every one speaker on the Right, there were roughly seven speakers on the Left. And while leftist speakers were awash with activists—including racial preference supporters, anti-war thumpers, and global warming pushers—those who fit into the “Right” category were not conservative activists but rather elected officials or presidential appointees.

The survey also uncovers separate graduation ceremonies at leading universities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) students and reveals that prominent schools—including Yale, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Northwestern, and Tulane—have a long history of shunning conservative policy makers on commencement day.

Notably, successful conservative media personalities including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge are absent from the list of graduation speakers despite The Fox News Channel’s ratings as the most watched cable news network, the dominance of talk radio, and the emergence of Internet journalism. Instead, students were forced to listen to representatives of the deadbeat media: the Tim Russerts, the Thomas Friedmans, and the Ted Koppels. Conservative intellectuals including Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, and Robert P. George were also passed up. Filling their places were the Charlie Rangels, the Oprah Winfreys, and the Bill Clintons.

Commenting on the study, Young America’s Foundation Spokesman Jason Mattera says, “For fourteen years, we’ve shown that college administrators are using commencement ceremonies to send their students off with one more predictable leftist lecture.”...

The rest of the story is equally illuminating (and alarming) plus it provides links to the full catalog of data used. Again, you'll find it on this YAF page.

Have You Brushed Your Teeth Today? You'd Better Hope It Wasn't with Chinese Toothpaste!

Claire and I have, for many years now, engaged in as careful and consistent a boycott of products imported from Communist China as possible. We do so for several reasons: China's forced abortion and sterilization policies; its severe persecution of Christians; its exploitation of slave labor and pitiful treatment of other workers, including children; its extreme hostility to Taiwan, Japan and even American interests; its ongoing network of political and industrial espionage which steals critical secrets from the West; and the devastating impact that its domination of the American marketplace by cheap, shoddy products has had on our economy and culture.

But now we have yet another reason to beware "Made in China" goods; namely, our immediate health.

A Florida company has just issued a nationwide recall for toothpaste it imported from China which could contain a deadly chemical. Indeed, the chemical is diethylene glycol, a humectant solvent used in antifreeze, printing ink, glue, and some brake fluids.

Yum.

Here is an excerpt from the latest story on the matter from World Net Daily:

...A slew of Chinese exports have recently been banned or turned away by U.S. inspectors, including wheat gluten tainted with the chemical melamine that has been blamed for dog and cat deaths in North America, monkfish that turned out to be toxic pufferfish, drug-laced frozen eel and juice made with unsafe color additives.

As WND reported, China, the leading exporter of seafood to the U.S., is raising most of its fish products in water contaminated with raw sewage and compensating by using dangerous drugs and chemicals, many of which are banned by the FDA.

The stunning news followed WND's report that FDA inspectors report tainted food imports from China are being rejected with increasing frequency because they are filthy, are contaminated with pesticides and tainted with carcinogens, bacteria and banned drugs.

China has consistently topped the list of countries whose products were refused by the FDA – and that list includes many countries, including Mexico and Canada, who export far more food products to the U.S. than China...

Grim Truths About Euthanasia

This Licia Corbella column from the Calgary Sun effectively exposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as morally criminal acts. A very good piece.

The Decadent, Devouring Dragon that is Planned Parenthood

The Family Research Council notes the latest reports about Planned Parenthood's ungodly (and I mean that quite literally) profits, including their whopping largesse from American taxpayers.

Hoping to lure more Republicans to support the upcoming appropriations bill, House Democrats surprised everyone by voting to increase the amount of abstinence-education funding from the $137 million that President Bush requested to $141 million. Although the measure still faces debate in the full House, the growing support for the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program looks promising. Unfortunately, the compromise over abstinence funding comes at a price.

In exchange for boosting the CBAE funds, Democrats want tens of millions more in Title X "family planning services." Last week, committee members voted to raise the Title X from $283 million to $311 million!

According to a new report by one of the biggest recipients of those dollars, Planned Parenthood, the increased funds would almost certainly work hand in neoprene glove with the organization's booming abortion services. The 2005-2006 Planned Parenthood Annual Report shows that the organization performed a record 264,943 abortions in 2005 yet did not record a single adoption referral.

With assets totaling more than $839 million, Planned Parenthood hardly needs a government handout. Contact your representatives and ask them to invest your tax dollars in the one form of pregnancy and disease prevention that never fails--abstinence.

Judge Moves to Stop Government Thievery

The state's habitual seizure of supposedly unclaimed property in bank and stock brokerage accounts, safety deposit boxes and other repositories of wealth has always been more than a little questionable.

The theory of "escheat," as it's called, is faintly medieval, assuming that idle property can be taken by a king for his personal use by divine right, a distant cousin of the doctrine of "eminent domain" under which property may be taken for public use.

California, however, refined it into a lucrative source of income, even making it easier to seize property when the state's budget was, as it often is, out of balance.

Banks and other holders of property have been required to transfer the assumed unclaimed assets to the State Controller's Office (although they often held onto it as long as possible for their own reasons). The controller would then make a token effort at finding the rightful owner, often nothing more than a fine-print newspaper ad, before depositing the property -- sold if necessary -- into the state treasury. So far, the state has seized $5.1 billion in property from 8.2 million accounts over the last half-century.

Last week, a federal judge ordered the state to stop seizures until it had vastly improved its efforts to find the rightful owners -- rejecting the state's rather unseemly claims that it would lose a lucrative source of income, about $400 million a year currently. His ruling followed a federal appellate court ruling that seizing property and giving faint notice to owners was unconstitutional.

"If the purpose of the law is, as the controller has reportedly said, to reunite owners with their lost or forgotten property, its ultimate goal should be to generate little or no revenue at all for the state," Judge William Shubb observed. He hinted that he would seize control of the system if he was not satisfied that the revised system was workable...

Theft by government bureaucrats (besides, of course, the usual methods of excessive and discriminatory taxation) is an important, growing and yet terribly overlooked problem. (Don't you love California's reasoning here -- we should get this money because we need the money?) Anyhow, I was quite pleased to see Judge Shubb's action and I hope it motivates others to slap government's grasping fingers away from stuff that isn't theirs.

The rest of this Sacramento Bee column (ably written by Dan Walters) is here.

Planned Parenthood (You know, the Folks Who Need Money from Your Charitable Contributions and Your Taxes) Is Worth Over $900 Million

The latest available figures are in and the picture they paint of Planned Parenthood's grisly (but very, very profitable) abortion business is something much different than that presented by the MSM.

Here's LifeNews.com with the story.

Pro-Research, Pro-Progress, and Pro-Life

You've been hearing quite a lot lately about the new developments in stem cell research that appear to allow scientific inquiry without killing human beings. Although there has already been dramatic progress by medical scientists working with adult stem cells (progress that is not mere potential but is helping cure diseases and injuries right now), these new techniques make for exciting news.

Here's the take on these matters from Chip Maxwell, former State Senator and Executive Director of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research:

NCER supports another breakthrough in stem cell research that does not involve embryonic stem cells. NCER has been saying for two years that researchers have been trying to manipulate genes in mature cells to turn them into the equivalent of embryonic stem cells. It appears to have been accomplished. This would not require destruction of embryonic humans for their stem cells, or the exploitation of women for eggs to make embryos.

It's more evidence that ethics and progress can proceed hand-in-hand in stem cell research. As two decades of success with adult stem cells has proven, we don't have to develop a commodity market in human eggs and engage in the systematic production and destruction of embryonic humans to succeed in stem cell research.

Chip also wants you to know that the NCER's current newsletter is available right here and that NCER represents "the folks who love stem cell research but just don't want embryos destroyed to do it." Right on.

Will Immigration Bill Increase Illegal Gang Activity?

Too many TV comedians joke about the “Crips” and the “Bloods,” rival gangs in Southern California. But for thousands of Americans, street gangs are a threatening reality. As Central Americans migrate to the United States in great numbers, they bring with them some of the world’s most brutal gangs -- including the notorious and rapidly growing MS-13’s (Mara Salvatrucha), an extremely violent group that boasts close to 10,000 members in over 33 US states.

One of the worst consequences of illegal immigration is the crime some immigrants perpetrate. Illegal alien gang members commit violence across the country -- even in places like Boise and Omaha. They seep into the country, creating cross-state connections rooted in nearly unbreakable, blood-bathed bonds. The statistics show that it’s a huge problem in California and several southwestern states. Now, Congress and President Bush are preparing to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants without providing adequate safeguards against that amnesty being granted to gang-bangers such as MS-13 members.

The Senate Immigration Bill essentially encourages an increase of gang activity in America. In Section 601 (g) (2), it states that gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty if they sign a statement that renounces their gang membership. Hmm. How many spies, mafiosi, or terrorists would hesitate to lie and renounce their allegiances in order to gain legal status in America?...

Here's the rest of this fine, forceful Ericka Andersen column over at Human Events. And, after reading it, I encourage you to follow up with a call, e-mail or letter to your Senator and let them know your opinion about legislation that would create more terror on the streets of American cities by carelessly allowing proven thugs across our borders. (Here's a great place to get the appropriate contact information.)

Forced Abortions in China: Stephen Mosher Talks About the Origin of Population Research Institute

This 5-minute You Tube video is a compelling piece about Stephen Mosher and Population Research Institute. I encourage you to check it and pass the word on to others to do the same.

Truth Can Be Tough to Take...But It Remains Truth

Oops. New Problems for Al Gore & Company

It's certainly not your typical conservative rag, but the Guardian (U.K.) is discovering some very troubling things about the Clean Development Mechanism. Below are excerpts from two NIck Davies stories the newspaper ran last week.

From Number One Story: A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.

One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits - known as certified emissions reductions - already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere...

And Story Number Two...The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment...

Finally! Court Allows Asylum for Victims of Forced Abortion

In San Francisco yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled that women facing forced abortion by their governments (most notably, Communist China) can be awarded asylum in the United States. Previously, U. S. law only allowed for asylum in cases of forced sterilization.

"Both forms of persecution have serious, ongoing effects," argued the three-judge panel. "We see no way to distinguish between the victims of forced sterilization and the victims of forced abortion for withholding of removal eligibility purposes."

Here's more about the case that led to this long-overdue human rights decision.

Politician Okay With His Damnation...As Long As He Can Be Politically-Correct Now

A Catholic politician in New South Wales has told the Archbishop of Sydney he would rather go to Hell than oppose legislation legalizing human cloning for embryonic stem-cell research. Several other politicians are persisting in publicly defying Australia's Cardinal Pell, who condemned embryonic stem-cell research and the decisions of those who support such research in unequivocal terms...

Here's the rest of the story from LifeSiteNews.com.

Movie Reviewer Ticked Off That Pregnancy-Themed Flick Isn't About Abortion

In yet another example of "I can't possibly imagine there are people whose moral standards aren't every bit as loose, self-centered and blasphemous as mine," here's what Philadelphia Inquirer movie reviewer, Karen Heller, said of the new flick, Knocked Up, a movie she can't get over is about a pregnancy and not an abortion.

...Knocked Up is an old-fashioned movie in other ways in that abortion is never contemplated, let alone mentioned. Schmabortion, Rogen's potty-mouthed pals call it, capable of uttering every word but this one...Despite all this, Knocked Up is an affecting, memorable comedy. I liked it in spite of the fact that the woman was perfect and the man was far from it, and abortion couldn't be mentioned, as if several protest groups had gotten their hands on the script. I know, no baby, no plot, no title but, still, the characters couldn't even utter the word?...

The Tryanny of the Sexual Revolution: Bill Will Force Pharmacists to Dispense Lethal "Birth Control" Drugs

The Access to Birth Control Act will not only increase promiscuity and create more sexually transmitted diseases, it will also trample underfoot the freedom of conscience by requiring pharmacists to dole out drugs they know endanger the health of their patients...yes, including the unborn.

But despite the severe costs in human tragedy and moral decline, the Democrats demand the irrationality of the sexual revolution move on.

Here's more of the story.

Here's George Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" At Its Best

The Editors of National Review have written an important and quite compelling piece extolling the genuine compassion (and dramatic effectiveness) of President Bush's actions against AIDS in Africa. Very good reading. Here's an excerpt:

“Compassionate conservatism” has been justly maligned, but it may yet leave one lasting and worthy legacy.

That would be the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), begun in 2003, which George W. Bush asked Congress last week to extend for another five years. Funding for AIDS prevention and treatment has seen a spectacular rise under PEPFAR. While spending on global AIDS relief hovered just short of $1 billion annually during Bill Clinton’s last years in office, the Bush administration has tripled that amount, spending an average of $3 billion per year since PEPFAR began. Under the proposal announced last Wednesday, that figure would double to $6 billion per year from 2008 to 2012. This is, as the president noted Wednesday, “unprecedented — the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history.”

Very rarely does a government program produce such momentous results: 1.1 million people afflicted with HIV have received treatment, and many of them have been saved from a horrible death not widely seen in America since the early ’90s. And, more important for the long run, prevention programs are working. Africa’s rate of HIV infection peaked around 2000, and is now decreasing more quickly than ever before.

PEPFAR signaled, and its second iteration amplifies, the United States’ emergence under the Bush administration as the global leader in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS.

At least, it should...

Sam Brownback on the Stem Cell Controversy

...LN: And there are alternatives that don't require the destruction of human life and they seem to be making more progress in actually helping patients, are they not?

Brownback: Definitely and I have long supported alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. This is the area that is making progress and the area that I think we need to focus on. I am fully committed to supporting and funding adult stem cell, cord blood and amniotic fluid research. I think deriving stem cells from amniotic fluid could really be the next new source of a tremendous number of treatments and provide the hope we all seek. These are ethical cures, that don't involve crossing that moral line of taking the life of the young human. They also appear to be less likely of developing tumors that we see again and again with embryonic stem cells.

LN: In April, when the Senate approved S5, it also approved a bill for alternative ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming tiny human beings. This seemed to divide the pro-life community to some extent regarding whether these approaches could be successful. In your study of this aspect of the issue, how confident are you that scientists can obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying human life?

Brownback: I supported the Coleman/Isakson bill to fund these alternatives. The legislation was carefully crafted so as not to allow any research involving the destruction of human embryos. There are disputes in the pro-life community about the prospect of some other alternatives. I myself am wary of any procedure that could involve the taking of a young human life. I think we ought to err on the side of life and continue to fund the research that is getting treatments and provides hope for real patients today...

Here's the rest of this exclusive (and illuminating) LifeNews.com interview with Sam Brownback.

Out of Harmony with God and Man: Homosexuals Sue Dating Service

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Here's Matt Barber's Town Hall column with the story about bitter, intolerant homosexual activists bringing suit against eHarmony.

Pat Boone: A Real Super Hero

He was once one of America's hottest entertainers: selling more records than Elvis, penning a best-selling book, starring in Hollywood movies. But when his squeaky-clean image proved to be the real thing, an increasingly decadent pop culture turned away. But that didn't stop this fellow's enthusiastic love of life nor did it end his popularity and remarkable impact upon American life.

Here's a very interesting article reviewing the amazing career of outspoken Christian, pro-life advocate and patriot, Pat Boone.

Pro-Abortion Democrats Win Victories (At Least Temporary) In Congress

International family planning groups cut off from aid because of their position on abortion could gain access to U.S.-donated contraceptives under legislation approved by a House panel Tuesday.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the State Department and foreign aid, said the contraceptive provision left intact the Reagan-era policy of banning aid to groups that provide or promote abortions.

Republicans disagreed and cited a letter to Democratic leaders from President Bush last month warning that he would veto any legislation that weakens current policy and laws on abortion. If the measure reaches the White House, said Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, top Republican on the panel, "they will veto the bill."

The bill, in another swipe at a favorite administration program, gives Bush and future presidents the right to waive current law that requires that one-third of U.S. aid for HIV/AIDS prevention be spent on abstinence programs.

Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., who helped draft the original abstinence language, said he was confident that the current administration would continue to promote it. But he warned that the country will get a new president in 2009 who could overturn the program...

Click on the title of this post for the rest of this Jim Abrams/Associated Press report.

Pretty Petty: "Supermodel" Can't Imagine Anyone Who Doesn't Live By The Same Barnyard Morals That She Does

Famous Victoria Secret model Gisele Bundchen, in pointed comments criticizing Pope Benedict's opposition to abortion, contraception and sexual immorality, demonstrated both her lack of morality and her cultural elitism when she demanded, "Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin!"

Here's the brief Reuters story.

Responding to Amnesty International's New Enthusiasm for Abortion

Dear Members of the IEC:

We read, with deep dismay and trepidation, your memo-circular of 5 April 2007 regarding your recommended policy statement on selected aspects of abortion (as amended at the Chairs Forum, 10th March 2007), and we take this venue to strongly protest its adoption and promotion.

Stripped of its euphemisms, your policy statement, in effect, urges all members of the global human community, in their individual capacity as sovereign states, through legislation, 1) to present abortion as an option in cases of unwanted/unplanned pregnancy; 2) to legalize the killing of unborn children, though conceding to certain “reasonable restrictions” by the state, like gestational limits; 3) to allow abortion without restrictions for “specific cases” like rape and incest; 4) to give mothers of aborted children access to medical services when complications arise. All these in the name of protecting women’s right to choice.

We are deeply disturbed with your policy statement because it contradicts and defeats the fundamental purpose for which Amnesty International had precisely been created, clearly reflected in your organization’s vision of “a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” Even more seriously, we are fearful of its adoption because, coming from a highly-regarded international institution like Amnesty International, your policy statement will surely have grave repercussions on our common global fight against fundamental human rights violations...

Read the entirety of this superb letter to the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International from Pro-Life Philippines Foundation Chairwoman, Sr. Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS. And then please consider contacting (even if it is the 2nd or 3rd time) Amnesty International yourself.

The mailing address is:
The International Executive Committee (IEC)
Amnesty International
International Secretariat
Peter Benenson House
1 Easton Street
London WCIX 0DW
United Kingdom

But you can also find the appropriate contact information for each country's local office (including e-mail addresses when available) at this web page.

On Keith Olbermann and Other Pseudo-Reporters

"We don't report the news; we select, manipulate and, when necessary, invent the news."

Check out this "Bottom Feeder Five" from the Media Research Center. Even those of you who know how radically unfair and biased the mainstream media can be will find these examples outrageous, especially the case of the serially sophomoric Keith Olbermann.

Reviewing the Effects of the Partial Bith Abortion Ban

Steven Ertelt from LifeNews.com has a good review of the reasons why the SCOTUS decision banning partial birth infanticide is a very beneficial event. Check it out here.

Worried About Your Mental Health? Get Married and Stay Married!

Enduring marriage safeguards mental health-for both men and women. But marital failure immediately jeopardizes the psychological well-being of men and women. To investigate the timing and character of the psychological harm visited upon both genders when marriages fail, sociologists at the University of Alberta recently pored over data collected between 1994 and 1998 from a nationally representative sample of over eleven thousand men and women.

They began their analysis of the data fully aware that "despite the growing retreat from marriage in both Canada and the United States ... studies clearly show that married individuals enjoy longer lives and are in better physical and mental health than their unmarried counterparts." What they sought to establish through their analysis, however, is whether marital breakup affects men and women in the same way, particularly in the short run.

The Alberta scholars' analysis first confirms what the researchers already knew. "We find," the researchers report, "that marriage continues to be beneficial for mental health." The Canadian men and women in a stable marriage throughout the study period experienced "significantly lower levels of distress relative to those who remain single, separated, or divorced."

The data further indicate that "entry into marriage is associated with lower levels of distress and a transition out of marriage increases psychological distress." But the Alberta team naturally focuses on the answer to their primary research question: "We find no evidence," the investigators write, "to suggest that the short-term effects of change in marital status on psychological distress are different for men and women." In other words, the disintegration of a marriage puts the former husband and the former wife in equal short-term psychological peril.

(Source: Lisa Strohschein et al., "Marital Transitions and Mental Health: Are There Gender Differences in the Short-Term Effects of Marital Status Change?" Social Science & Medicine 61 [2005]: 2293-2303.) (Hat tip -- The Howard Center)

Action Needed to Stop Government from Spending Your Money to Kill Preborn Children

Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council sends this important request for help in opposing the politicians' latest assault on the sanctity of human life. Please take a few minutes to call or e-mail your Congressmen today about this travesty. The relevant contact information can be found here or you can use the FRC form over here.

This week--probably on Thursday, June 7-- the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill (S. 5) to fund research that requires the killing of human embryos. The Senate passed this bill in May and now the House will vote on it. Sponsored by Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), S. 5 will send your tax dollars to research on human embryos that supposedly are "leftover" from in vitro fertilization. Instead of promoting the adoption of these human embryos, this bill would require their death.

As you may know, President Bush has decided that such research involve cells taken from human embryos could be funded so long as the cells were obtained on or prior to August 9, 2001. Since then, the government has funded research on over 22 stem cell lines. Fortunately, the President's policy erected a wall and does not encourage the further killing of human embryos for these cells.

The Reid-Harkin bill will tear down this wall permanently!

Just as abortion is currently legal, sadly, killing human embryos is completely legal. As a result, this week's debate is really about federal funding. We don't federally fund abortion even though it is legal. Likewise, liberals should not force U.S. taxpayers to fund research that requires the killing of embryos. Last July, President Bush vetoed a similar bill and the House upheld the veto. This year, the battle has become more intense. The House passed a similar bill (H.R. 3) in January. The Senate then passed a slightly different version in April, which the House will now vote on and send it to the President. We expect the President to veto S. 5. The House does not have the votes to overturn a veto, but we must make sure no Members who opposed H.R. 3 in January switch their votes to support S. 5.

Please contact your Representatives and let them know that you strongly oppose S. 5. Click here to send them an email opposing S. 5. Or call right away at 202-224-3121 and ask for your senators' offices.

Thank you and God bless you.

Tony Perkins

Should Christians Disregard Romney's Mormonism?

The evangelical blog bigwig Hugh Hewitt has taken a much-publicized position that opposing Mitt Romney's candidacy for U.S. President because of his Mormonism is mere bigotry, the same moral crime as would be anti-Semitism or racism. Indeed, Hewitt has written a book extolling Romney and urging America's Christians to disregard the man's particular religion when it comes time to vote...a religion based on the extra-biblical (and anti-biblical) revelations brought by the angel Moroni to the chosen prophet, Joseph Smith.

Good grief. Is Christianity so weak, so destitute, so irrelevant in this country that its adherents can't even stand against the clearest and most sinister of heresies?

In this column, Frank Pastore reminds believers of a few important basics.

When there is a conflict between the moral and the legal, the moral must trump. For the legal is the attempt to codify the moral. When there is a conflict between the church and the state, the church must trump (when the state attempts to prevent the church from being the church). For Christians, ultimate allegiance must be reserved for Jesus and His Word. Anything short of this is compromise and idolatry.

On the question of “Who is Lord?” The Christian can only respond, “Jesus is Lord.”...

... I’m a Christian-American-Conservative-Republican–in that order. I support Christianity first and foremost, everything else flows from that. I’m a Christian who happens to be a Republican, not a Republican who happens to be a Christian. I care more about people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ than I do any political candidate. At the end of my life, the question I will be asked is not, “Whom did you help elect?” But, “Whom did you serve?”

Hugh says bigotry is exposed by simply inserting the word “Jew” for “Mormon” in suspect statements. This seems to imply that both stand in the same relationship to Christianity. This is not so. Jews and Christians worship the same God, Mormons worship different gods. And Jews don’t insist they are the restoration of Christianity after eighteen centuries of apostasy.

Since Joseph Smith so clearly misrepresents the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the Bible, why would it be bigotry if someone chooses not to support such heresy?

Hugh’s political point here is that any American is bigoted for rejecting a candidate simply because of his or her religion. My primary concern is that Christians will become excessively “tolerant,” that they will bend their knees to the Caesar of political correctness, that they will lose their confidence to confront a fallen culture, that they will be unwilling to say, “X is a false religion that teaches a different Jesus”—whether that X is Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism...

...As a political conservative, I like Romney more than I like Giuliani or McCain. If he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him.

But my primary concern is as a Christian. This means that I’m concerned that should Romney win, public criticism of Mormonism will be chilled, the Gospel will be compromised, and Christians will have elevated the political expediency of the state above the eternal purposes of the church.

This must never happen. For to me, Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.

Every Christian should want Mormonism exposed for what it is to all the world. Even if it becomes the religion of the President of the United States.

These are extremely important issues to consider. Indeed, the points Pastore outlines are the very ones that, unlike him, convince me I could not in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney at all.

You see, I do not subscribe to a "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy. The right (and the responsibility) to vote is a very precious thing and I remember the sacrifices made to protect that right. I refuse to toss it in the dirt. Therefore, if a candidate has lousy ideas, a lousy record or, for that matter, is simply a louse, he or she doesn't get my vote. Simple. Uncomplicated. Pure. Christianity never allows for moral or intellectual compromises and so there are times when the necessary political choice is not a "this or that" but a principled "neither."

For more on Romney's religion, I remind you of these recent Vital Signs Blog posts: One; two; and three.

Global Warming or Global War? Which Should Scare You More?

Global war or global warming: which concerns you more? The question sharply divides Americans, a split that makes me fear for my country. The freest, strongest, most innovative and prosperous nation in history ought to know better.

The twofold story line from the media and many politicians right now is that (1) we have been in Iraq too long for no reason, and (2) every day brings us closer to catastrophe from alleged human-induced climate change. The agenda is therefore to speed up the Kyoto-style self-flagellation while slowing the fight against jihadist Islam.

This is utterly upside down. An unproved, slow-moving environmental worry is elevated to crisis proportions by our elites – while an avowed human enemy at the gates, committed to killing us by the millions and destroying the United States, is wished away. What folly...

This is a first-rate column by John Andrews, a Claremont Institute fellow, former President of the Colorado Senate and a conservative champion whose public service goes all the way back to his service as a Navy submarine officer and then writing speeches for Richard Nixon. Andrews is also chairman of the Colorado-based Backbone America, a national citizens alliance that champions the principles of the American founding fathers. The organization's radio voice can be heard on the internet from this site.

The Democrats' Big Three: Spending, Skulking and Hypocrisy

After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them...

This brief Andrew Taylor piece (distinctly different than the "political coverage" given by the MSM) underscores the penchants of Democrats for big spending, cover-ups and hypocrisy. What a combo.

Feeling Sad in Switzerland Is a Most Dangerous Condition

On the weekend that "60 Minutes" fave Jack Kervorkian was released from prison in America, The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) broke this story about the lethal assistance provided to depressed people by Swiss "suicide clinics."

Prosecutors are calling for tougher regulations on Switzerland's assisted suicide clinics after uncovering evidence that some of the foreign clients they help to die are simply depressed rather than suffering incurable pain.

The clinics, which attract hundreds of foreigners, including Britons, every year, have been accused of failing to carry out proper investigations into whether patients meet the requirements of Switzerland's right-to-die laws.

In some cases, foreign clients are being given drugs to commit suicide within hours of their arrival, which critics say leaves doctors and psychologists unable to conduct a detailed assessment or to provide appropriate counselling.

Andreas Brunner, the senior prosecutor of the Zurich canton, told The Sunday Telegraph: "We are not trying to ban the so-called death tourism, but the outsourcing of suicide must be put under stricter control...

Can you believe this stuff? A calm, rather indifferent discussion of "death tourism" and "the outsourcing of suicide?" God, have mercy.

The rest of this Bojan Pancevski report is here.

The List of Top Flight Scientists Who Deny Al Gore's Global Warming Claims Just Keeps Getting Longer

Convinced that there is a global warming crisis? So was Canada's Financial Post writer Lawrence Solomon. And then he wrote a piece about scientific dissenters of that view. And then another...and another...and another. And now has completed more than 20. His latest is a summation of sorts that makes for great "pass around" literature. An excerpt:

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position...

By the way, you can find each of Solomon's previous articles by following the link above to this present story.

New Entries About Old Books

Our literary friends may be interested in the fact that my sabbatical (of sorts) from The Book Den is over. In fact, I've returned with a flurry of brief posts on Kon-Tiki, The Count of Monte Cristo, Barchester Towers, A Town Like Alice, Jane Eyre, and a couple of overlooked Ogden Nash poems as well as the new feature, Classic Captions. So why not drop by The Book Den for a quick visit some time soon?

A Lawyer's Defense of Christianity: A Classic Presentation by John Warwick Montgomery

One of my earliest and most profound intellectual mentors in the days following my conversion to Christianity was Lutheran theologian, John Warwick Montgomery. True, his influence came only through a few cassette tapes and his books (particularly The Suicide of Western Theology, The Shape of the Past, Where Is History Going?, and God's Inerrant Word) but his well-detailed arguments and his calm, confident approach to apologetics was very instructive and inspiring. I still re-read those early books and find them of great value.

Well, over at this Veritas Forum page, you'll find a few audio files featuring Dr. Montgomery taken from talks he presented back in 1999 at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Sure, it will take a little time but, trust me, they are well worth your time. I suggest the most important is "A Lawyer Examines the Case for Christianity."

And no, though I couldn't get the video file to work on my computer, the audio was just fine. And, for those of you who like to download a MP3 file for use in your car or headsets, that's available too. You might look around the Veritas Forum site; there's quite a lot of good stuff there.

The Eau de Scandal of the Clintons Yet Wafts Through The Air

But the mainstream media have no noses.

However, Amanda Carpenter does and her expose' column here at Town Hall sniffs out today's Clinton scandal; namely, Hillary's very profitable (and quite possibly illegal) relationship with InfoUSA.

Boycotting Israeli Universities: The Latest Example of Europe's Death Wish

The continent of Europe is committing suicide.

Wednesday's decision by Britain's University and College Union to call for a boycott of Israeli universities and colleges was not only hypocritical. It was suicidal.

It is not simply that the British prefer to boycott Israeli universities than say, Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, Saudi and Jordanian universities where students are indoctrinated to seek the annihilation of the Jewish people and the subjugation of Christianity through the destruction of Western civilization.

It is not merely that they ignored the poor, brave Iranian students who just three weeks ago were brutally attacked by regime forces as they sought to hold elections for their pro-democracy campus organizations.

By calling for a boycott of Israeli universities, Britain's academic establishment is turning its back not only on Israel, but on Britain. When Britain's professoriate rejects Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, democratic nation-state and glorifies Palestinian society which supports global jihad and the destruction of Western civilization, they are rejecting the British state.

They are embracing a culture founded on a rejection of the culture and traditions that have formed Britain since the Magna Carta was issued in 1215. For the past 800 years, Britain has stood for individual liberty and freedom of inquiry - at least for the British themselves. In universities like Oxford and Cambridge, it was this humanist spirit and the justified national and cultural pride it nurtured which facilitated Britain's rise to international power. By boycotting Israel, which itself embodies these British ideals, the British are abrogating their own traditions of openness. Consequently, they are destroying themselves.

And Britain is not alone in its self-destruction. Britain's rush to oblivion is part of a wider trend overtaking all of Western Europe...

This compelling article is written by Caroline B. Glick, the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. You can read the piece at the Jewish World Review website right here.

Fighting Back Against Abortion-Minded U.N. Agitators

Samantha Singson reports for C-FAM ----

On Friday the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) will conclude its latest round of two-week meetings in New York, having questioned six out of the eight countries under review on their abortion laws. As in previous sessions, CEDAW Committee members used the question of maternal mortality and contraceptive prevalence to bring up the issue of abortion in Mauritania, Mozambique, Pakistan, Serbia, Sierra Leone and Syria. Notably, two delegations took the opportunity to push back.

Abortion is not mentioned in the treaty, but delegations often go along with the committees’ line of questioning on abortion by providing data and answering queries on the subject during their reviews. During this round of talks, however, delegations deviated from the routine by making statements in stark contrast to the committee’s argument. The delegate from Pakistan, undergoing its first review, told CEDAW that “abortion is considered murder once a fetus is conceived,” and then stated that abortion was illegal in her country except to save the life of the mother.

When committee members criticized Sierra Leone for low contraceptive prevalence, the delegate responded that in Sierra Leone there was a prevailing cultural belief that “children were a gift from God.”...

Another Horror Story, Courtesy of America's Nanny State Bureaucrats

Read this story and weep. And then perhaps make plans to go live in Malta where you might be able to raise your children, run a business, speak your mind and worship as you please.

For alas, here in the United States, the Kafkaesque nightmares have become realities as radical ideologues behind government desks and court benches do all in their pernicious power to destroy freedom, justice, and common sense.

Lord, give us relief.

Will Rupert Murdoch Be Buying the Wall Street Journal After All?

...The Bancroft family, which owns 24 percent of Dow Jones shares but holds 64 percent of voting power through a dual-class stock system, said: ". . . the mission of Dow Jones may be better accomplished in combination or collaboration with another organization which may include News Corporation," the media company controlled by Murdoch....

...Murdoch bid $5 billion for Dow Jones in April, a sum that was much more than the company's market value, saying he prized the Journal and wanted to add it to his global media conglomerate.

Almost instantly, Murdoch's offer was turned down by the Bancrofts, who feared that the media mogul, owner of Fox News Channel and the New York Post, would use the newspaper to further his political agenda and business interests.

The Bancrofts now appear to have relented to growing pressure from Dow Jones investors and have agreed to meet with Murdoch. The Dow Jones board said it would send a representative to the meeting, but did not specify when the meeting would take place.

On Wednesday, the chief investment officer of T. Rowe Price, the largest Dow Jones shareholder outside of the Bancrofts, urged the company to accept Murdoch's bid, saying Dow Jones has no plan to lift its share price to Murdoch's offer, the Financial Times reported...

Here's the rest of this Washington Post story.