All black people -including Barak Obama- should understand

Black people were systematically enslaved and oppressed in the United States for hundreds of years. Their humanity was denied, their human rights trampled.

You'd think that with such a history, black people would be quick to denounce and combat other forms of oppression that, like slavery, deny both the humanity and basic rights of the vulnerable.

Why do so many white people tolerate legalized elective abortion? Despite slavery's history perhaps whites are still slow to recognize oppression, at least when the oppression is praised by some as a sacred right and enshrined by unjust law... just as slavery was enshrined and defended as a right.

But why do so many black people tolerate and even defend legalized elective abortion? Why don't they recognize it for what it is, and denounce it and all its defenders, both black and white?

That to me is a great mystery.


“We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“A nation that kills its children is a nation without hope.” -Pope John Paul II

The ethics of accidential vs. deliberate abortion

To:
R. Alta Charo
Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics,
University of Wisconsin Law School

Dear Professor Charo,

Last week I invited You to clarify Your comments quoted in the recent USA Today article, Differences surface in McCain-Obama Christian forum

I didn’t receive a response from You, but perhaps my question was not clear enough to merit a response. I'll try to be clearer by cutting to the ethical crux of the matter:

Is it indeed Your position that deliberate, procured abortion is ethically equivalent to accidental, spontaneous abortion?

Because of Your expertise in the areas of bioethics and reproductive rights law, I'm very interested to learn Your perspective on this important question.

Thank You for Your consideration.

Sincerely,
John Robin.

Dr. Charo, do You believe a procured abortion is equivalent ethically to an accidental miscarriage?

Dear Professor Charo,

I am disappointed that Your response (of 18 August) was nothing more meaningful than a link to an article about Luc Bovens' Journal of Medical Ethics paper on the "rhythm method". The medical basis for his assertions is widely controverted, but that's beside the point. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/health/13rhyt.html)

Any reasonable person can distinguish clear moral differences between these scenarios:

1) a couple intends to avoid conception, has sexual intercourse at a time they have scientifically but erroneously determined to be infertile. They conceive, but the child dies through unintentional miscarriage;

2) a couple deliberately conceives multiple children, and then deliberately targets some for implantation and others for extermination;

3) a scientist deliberately conceives multiple children, then subjects them to mutilating experiments, finally destroying them.

Your quotation in the USA Today article seems to imply that pro-lifers, in order to be "consistent", must oppose on ethical grounds anything that results in the death of human embryos, regardless of whether the deaths are unintended or deliberate. Is this really what You are implying? Would You please clarify?

Best regards,
John Robin.

Natural family planning NOT ethically equivalent to embryonic stem cell research

Re: Differences surface in McCain-Obama Christian forum

To: R. Alta Charo, professor of law and ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dear Professor Charo,

USA Today quoted You, "If (McCain) believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research, IVF (in vitro fertilization) and even the so-called rhythm method."

If this quote is accurate, then it’s only two-thirds right. Certainly, the inalienable rights of a newly conceived human being ought to be protected, and embryonic stem cell research and IVF result in terrible violations of these rights.

However, the “rhythm method” and other forms of natural family planning involving periodic abstinence (such as the highly effective “Creighton Model”) involve acts of a much different sort, acts that do not result in injury or death to any human being. Couples who practice periodic abstinence exercise their reproductive powers in a responsible and loving way, without trying to manipulate, circumvent, or destroy either the nature of the sexual act or its natural consequences, namely conception and childbirth.

By contrast, IVF and embryonic stem cell research subject newly conceived human beings to manipulation and death by experimentation and selective extermination. Even if these activities are carried out for good motives, such as to further medical research or bring children to an infertile couple, they are ethically reprehensible because they involve the exploitation and killing of one class of human beings in order to obtain some benefit for another class of human beings.

It is no coincidence that couples who practice periodic abstinence as a means of regulating conception and childbirth tend to be strongly “pro-life”, believing that from the moment of conception, human beings have inalienable rights which must be protected by any just society. Those who hold such a position stand ethically on high ground.

Thinking of getting a vasectomy?

Lately I've heard several radio ads for a Chicago-area clinic encouraging men to have a vasectomy. If You're thinking about it, I urge You to research this carefully, and don't rely only on the information provided by those selling these procedures.

Why do I care? No, I haven't had this procedure and never will. There are strong philosophical and moral reasons why no man -especially no Christian (much less a Catholic) man- should consider sterilizing himself. But aside from those reasons I feel sorry for the men who will have this operation and regret it purely because of the chronic physical pain that afflicts more than a few. So I just want to point to some medical info You should be aware of if You're considering paying someone to sterilize You.


"Pain, Diabetes And Dementia -Research Highlights Medical Risks of Vasectomies"
National Catholic Register, August 12-18, 2007
-Read about what may be strong link between vasectomy and a form of dementia called primary progressive aphasia (PPA).

If It Works, Don't Fix It!
Vasectomy Information Home Page.
-Lots of information and references regarding the risks of vasectomy.

"Vasectomy: A pain in the b***s?"
Malehealth
"...few realise that at up to one in three can expect to suffer long-term testicular pain."

"Testicular Pain Following Vasectomy: A Review of Postvasectomy Pain Syndrome"
Christiansen and Sandlow, Journal of Andrology, 2002.
The University of Iowa Department of Urology, Iowa City, Iowa.
"...a small percentage of postvasectomy patients (less than 10%) develop PVPS."
(What if You're in the unlucky 10%?)

LongTerm Complications after a Vasectomy Operation
ABC Radio National
"I had a terrible experience of the pain over a period of a few days, just continuing to get worse and worse and worse and worse. Until I reached the point where I was writhing on the floor in agony; it was dreadful..."

Also see the following:

Journal of Urology
* J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1528. Re: Vasectomy reversal for treatment of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
* Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):269-270; The incidence of post-vasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role of nerve stripping (denervation) of the spermatic cord in its management.
* J Urol 1996 Apr;155(4):1284-1286; Questionnaire-based outcomes study of nononcological post-vasectomy complications.
* Br J Urol 1992 Feb;69(2):188-191; Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy.
* Br J Urol 1991 Oct;68(4):407-413; Epididymectomy for post-vasectomy pain: histological review.
* J Urol 1985 Sep;134(3):494-497; A late post-vasectomy syndrome.

Trent Lott has had enough of free speech

Senator Lott: 'Opposition must cease'

Senator Lott, I'd like You to publicly explain Your unacceptable comment, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

You do not seem to remember that You are an elected representative of constituents whose right to free speech -and free press- is protected by the Constitution. Your job is to defend the Constitution and represent Your constituents.

Your remarks suggest You would rather throttle the press and silence opposition, as a despot suppressing a troublesome peasantry.

Your comments and and many of Your colleagues are helping voters realize that "Republican" increasingly means not "conservatism", but "oligarchy".

Giuliani defends murder to win White House

Giuliani Defends Stance on Abortion

Associated Press

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani forcefully reaffirmed his support for abortion rights on Friday and argued that his divergence from conservatives on the issue should not disqualify him from being the eventual GOP nominee.

"This is a matter of deep and profound judgment," he said in a speech at Houston Baptist University. "It's a matter of morals. It's a matter of your interpretation of how laws should operate, your interpretation of how respect for the rights of others should operate. But in a country like ours ... I believe you have to respect their viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice."

...despite his belief that abortion was "morally wrong" — he believes the decision should ultimately be left to individuals and their decisions should be respected.

Mr. Giuliani argues that killing unborn children is "morally wrong", but is to be protected as a decision that rightly belongs to the domain of individual choice, and these "decisions should be respected". Why aren't other forms of murder also to be defended as matters of "individual choice", Rudy? Is there no political advantage to be gained in defending more visible forms of homicide?

The Declaration of Independence loudly proclaims the truth:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The most basic and important purpose of government -and the highest duty of those who serve in positions of government- is to protect and uphold the basic rights of the individuals comprising the society. The most basic and first of these rights is life: that is, to be permitted to live, free from the unjust assault of aggressors and their apologists.

Mr. Giuliani's defends as a matter of private preference the deliberate killing of the most defenseless in our society. A country that will not summon the courage to protect its children from lethal aggression is a country with a death wish.

Mr. Giuliani's position on abortion is barbaric, and reveals he is not worthy of public office.

Be a patriot. Boycott Citgo.

Chavez's Citgo Is No Friend of America by Mac Johnson
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela threatens to provide a South American foothold to nations hostile to the United States: nations who are happy to exploit a thuggish, Marxist dictator of an oppressed, unstable country. (Note Chavez's five-billion dollar regional oil drilling project with China, and his stated intent to destroy U.S. influence in the world.) Through his total control of the Venezuela-owned Citgo Corporation, Chavez intends to manipulate U.S. politics and buy political favors through his sale of discounted heating oil to "needy" American customers in congressional districts with pork-hungry representatives. Are there no laws barring foreign governments from manipulating our elected officials?

The obvious first step for Americans to resist this hostile foreign influence is to stop buying Citgo products. I'm boycotting Citgo, and hope You will too. Next, we should direct Congress and our president to find a way to repel this dangerous dictator.

WFMT Folk Festival 2006 -a political event?

WFMT - Show Detail
Words can hardly express my great appreciation and decades-long affection for WFMT and the superb work You do. Thank You! But I do have to express a little disappointment today. Perhaps my listening was simply ill-timed, but on at least two occasions recently (including today) I've tuned in just in time to hear some angry Canadian folk music performer (or another) denigrating the Bush administration, evidently with the hearty approval of the audience. I don’t know very much about folk music, but suspect that its diversity precludes its being monolithically leftist, pacifist, or contemptuous of our democratic government.
WFMT offers a valuable service in promoting and preserving a wide range of classical and folk music, and this helps to humanize and strengthen our own culture. Not having listened to “WFMT Folk Festival 2006” in its entirety today, I’m left wondering how many songs in the program were supportive of those in military and public service who are likewise engaged in promoting the humanity and security of our culture.
Public dissent and serious criticism of public officials should be a positive force in steering the national rudder, but without balance and fairness even musical programs can become divisive, destructive… and not much fun.

Iran uses Hezbollah as a diversion, continues nuclear program.

WorldNetDaily: Iran missile transfer puts most Israelis in range
While the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah runs its course, Iran is gaining time to develop its nuclear capability.

The world's attention is focused on the more visible but purely secondary regional threat posed by Hezbollah's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and the Israeli response in Lebanon. How much longer will it be before the president of Iran is fully equipped to carry out the threats he has already openly expressed? Who doubts that once he possesses nuclear weapons he will hasten to use them?

The Tivoli Theater is a classic experience

How often do You get a lot more than You expected?

Tonight my wife, daughter, mother, father, and I attended a screening of the movie 'Cars' at the Tivoli Theater (http://www.classiccinemas.com/history/tivoli.asp) in Downers Grove, Illinois.

The movie was a little slow in spots, but deserves credit for the sophistication and artistry of its animation, its surprising promotion the wholesome values of friendship, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and appreciation of simple pleasures and natural beauty. 'Cars' makes an appeal to recall a nearly forgotten time, when road trips 'out west' were not merely a means to reach a destination, but were prized for the beauty and social dimension of the journey itself, whose pre-interstate era route and pace brought its travellers into closer contact with nature and the people along the way.

This message was well conveyed at the Tivoli, a theater opened in 1928, which not only has escaped the wrecking ball of time, but boldly speaks a happy message of confident and youthful tradition. The anachronistic three dollar admission perhaps prepares one to expect a decrepit box with gummy seats, sticky floors, and a tiny screen, but at the Tivoli we were greeted by a building with a vigorous architecture and beautifully restored and improved interior. Bold color scheme. Gold leaf paint. Good amenities. Comfortable seating, a large screen, good picture quality and very good sound.

Before the movie an organist skillfully enlivened the audience with the 3-manual Wurlitzer. The interaction between the organist and the appreciative audience was a real treat. After the movie, complementary candies were offered to the exiting patrons.

I have to applaud the owners and management of the Tivoli, who provided not just a good movie experience, but an evening of family entertainment that went beyond the movie, and was worth well more than the admission fee. I don't know another theater in the Chicago area I'd rather attend. Thanks to You, and keep up the great work!

Illinois Senator Durbin deepens his disgrace

BREITBART.COM - Stem Cell Bill Expected to Force Bush Veto

"The Senate moved Tuesday toward sending a bill expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to President Bush, who has promised a swift veto -his first..."
"This is a vote that millions of Americans are watching," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "They can't understand why America for the last five years has shut down medical research that promises hope."

Senator, You are well aware that embryonic stem cell research is legal and aggressively being pursued by numerous researchers in the United States. Today's vote in the Senate does not concern whether such research will be permitted, but only whether it will be supported by public funds. Your statement that "America... has shut down medical research that promises hope" is a misrepresentation and a lie. It's all the more disgusting because of Your willingness to treat embryonic human beings not as unique human beings, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, but as raw material to be exploited. To You, their highest value lies not in their innate personhood or even their potential to enjoy childhood and a productive adulthood. No, they are of more use to You as fodder for science, and as coins to be spent in furthering Your political career.

You clearly see nothing wrong with sacrificing the vulnerable and defenseless for the sake of the powerful.

The spirit of Nazism and statism live on in You and all politicians who prize political power above the defense of the defenseless.

You, sir, have again disgraced Your position as senator.

Bush seeks to appease Hitler

Iran says Western proposal 'positive' - Yahoo! News

The President of Iran will not stop until he is stopped. Providing him "incentives" and nuclear technology will not contain his ambitions but rather accelerate his rush to war and a new holocaust.

Dubai Firm Cleared to Buy Military Supplier

Dubai Firm Cleared to Buy Military Supplier
Something may be rotten in Denmark, but the stench of an ill and hobbling democracy hovers over the United States.
There are indications that the United States is headed toward increasingly turbulent times with some Muslim and other third-world nations. So why is the Bush administration seemingly fixated on making us more vulnerable to these nations? OK, I suppose the administration doesn't actually want to make us more vulnerable. What alarms me is the administration's seemingly unrestrained promotion of big business to the detriment of national security.

Remember the Dubai ports deal? President Bush almost couldn't let go of that millstone even when it plunged into the harbor. Remember his recent committment of nuclear technology to India? Recall our ongoing massive trade deficit with China? How about our "open door" policy to ill-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants? Or the massive domestic spending, to the point of debt-worship, on Medicare and other domestic programs.

But back to Dubai. They couldn't close the deal on the ports, so what does the administration negotiate behind the backs of the American public, and then spring upon us to remind us to stay in our place? The sole supplier of certain military turbine components is one of a group of manufacturers being sold to a Dubai government-owned company. Take that, America! "Who do You think You are to embarrass and oppose me before the world? I'm the President! No matter that Dubai supports terrorists (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp)".

Why can't we recognize the signs of the times and decide that on some issues it is time to circle the wagons. It's a good time to insist that we don't continue to outsource critical military components. It's a good time to protect our critical domestic infrastructure and military capabilities. It's a good time to take control of our own borders and moderate the flood of illegal immigration.

"Peacemakers" ungrateful for military rescue of kidnapped colleagues

Pulse24 - Toronto's News

Four members of the so-called "Christian Peacemaker Teams" were kidnapped four months ago by Muslim terrorists. One, an American, was tortured and brutally murdered. Today the three surviving hostages were rescued by British and American troops without casualties.

You'd think that CPT might express some gratitude to the soldiers who risked their lives rescuing these hostages. But no, CPT's statement of early today appears more consumed with anti-military rhetoric than real gratitude for those who selflessly secured the rescue of their friends.

"We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq... We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

I'm sure CPT is very happy over their friends' return, but not very happy at all that British and American forces were instrumental in freeing them. This rang loud and clear in CPT's public statement.

Evidently CPT heard from more than a few individuals who excoriated them for the ingratitude of their statement which stood throughout most of the day. Tonight CPT posted on its website an "addenda", which acknowledged the soldiers:

"We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues."

Am I being harsh on CPT, considering these people are still grieving the murder of their colleague, Tom Fox? I don't think so. Their grief did not prevent them from blaming the rescuers for causing the kidnapping and "so much pain and suffering in Iraq" through their "illegal occupation".

CPT's "addenda", published after a day of public outrage at the organization's ingratitude and political exploitation of the kidnapping and rescue, rings hollow.

Patriots accused of xenophobia in stopping ports deal

Port Deal Backlash -- Joe Mariani -- GOPUSA

In "Port Deal Backlash" the American public is scolded for demanding loudly and insistently that Congress stop Dubya from doing the dubious Dubai deal. It's unfortunate that President Bush and some leading Republicans dug in their heals to defend the transaction without giving due consideration to the nature of the public's objections or their tsunamic force. As a result, the President suffered an embarassing spanking.

I'm tempted to criticize some of the more strident Democrats who loudly (and perhaps gleefully) pounded the President while the pounding was good. However, I can hardly blame them. The President, I'm convinced, was backing a deal that was bad for the United States, and much of the public believed this to be the case. Presumably the President and Congress had further information that might have been used to defend the deal, but the public evidently didn't see the President make a convincing case. They felt he just wasn't using common sense. And suddenly the public's trust was undermined when it realized that the mechanism for approving such deals appears to be inadequate and potentially dangerous.

It's too bad, because President Bush has done some great things that have bolstered the security of the U.S. I suppose we shouldn't expect him to be perfect, but we should expect him to be consistently strong where he has shown his greatest strenghts: in protecting the security of the country.

President Bush, we need to see more coherent and comprehensive efforts to secure our borders, defeat terrorist enemies of the U.S., improve the fairness of our international trade, and reduce our federal spending.

This bad deal isn't dead yet... Congress, don't lose Your nerve.

Senator: UAE firm to transfer port operations to U.S. 'entity' - CNN.com

It appears that Congress is not totally deaf to the public, at least when the public reacts with enough unity and outrage.

However, this deal doesn't really sound dead. Dubai Ports World is proposing giving control of the ports to an American "entity". Why does DPW have any say in the matter if the deal is dead?

Let's remain vigilant and work to regain American control of all our American ports. The days are gone when it was acceptable to have our key infrastructure owned or operated by entities aligned with nations whose friendliness toward the United States is dubious at best.

U.S.-India nuclear deal is a threat to world security

India nuclear deal pushed - Washington Times

It's hard to guess how many nations will bare their nuclear arms before this decade is done. Perhaps more disturbing than the number will be the identity of those nations. The world already has been threatened by the nuclear saber-rattling of an Iranian Hitler and a North Korean Stalin. For Iran and North Korea, leveling the playing field with the U.S. and its allies may be a dream close to fulfillment. Other nations in Asia in Africa certainly are dreaming the same powerful dream.

There must be several former Soviet republics which still possess Soviet-era nuclear weapons. How many of them have resisted the temptation to quietly convert uranium to gold: an alchemist's dream, one that requires no science? How can they be expected to resist the temptation when now even the U.S. is openly forging a deal openly to trade nuclear technology for ...for what? Increased access to Indian markets? The U.S. will be perceived as selling nuclear technology in disregard of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This will diminish the authority and value of the NPT. On what basis can the U.S. object to the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea when it rewards India, who has for decades thumbed its nose at the NPT while developing and then testing nuclear weapons? The Indian deal will damage our ability to contain nuclear techonology through diplomacy and law, and will encourage our adversaries to heap contempt upon American non-proliferation rhetoric.

As second- and third-world nations race to achieve military parity with their more menacing neighbors, it will be increasingly difficult or soon impossible for the western powers to contain the genie any longer. Envy and hatred toward the U.S. and its allies will be fueled by the selective and self-serving attitude displayed by the U.S., which apparently is ready to pontificate against nuclear proliferation when it suits American interests, but is ready to subordinate such principles to economic interests at the whim of the administration.

Congress needs to dissect and examine this deal very closely, and consider very carefully whether the percieved benefits of this deal outweigh the very dangerous effects this deal may cause.

Even Republicans can't back President Bush on the ports deal

Lawmaker vows to kill ports deal -The Washington Times

US House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter is on the right track, and I applaud him for courageously applying common sense to this dangerous situation. Our national security is jeopardized by deals to sell assets and technology, or outsource control of critical infrastructure to foreign states, especially states whose loyalties and interests are not those of the United States. Unfortunately in this matter our own President Bush appears to be on the wrong side of the fence. Why is that? I really don't understand, but I feel our national security is threatened by some of his recent actions.

President Bush rewards India with nuclear technology, slaps Pakistan and China

U.S., India reach agreement on nuclear deal -The Washington Times

Let me get this straight... India has always refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and so now we reward them for this by granting them increased access to American nuclear technology. And in exchange for what? This article doesn't really make this clear, but You can bet Your bottom dollar that the answer is measured in dollars.

Turning over nuclear technology to India is likely to destabilize an already unstable region. How will this be perceived by Pakistan and China? Not favorably, who will regard India as an increasing threat to their security.

And this deal is good for the U.S. because... we will gain increased access to Indian markets?

I don't think so. I want to know which companies are behind the lobbying that promoted this plan. The most obvious suspects are those who will directly sell nuclear equipment or know-how to India.

The United States is selling itself to foreign interests, piece by piece, and risking a destabilizing and accelerated nuclear arms race between adversarial nations in Asia.

I hope Congress has the sense to kill this plan.