The Church Finally Stands Up For the Unborn

It is sad, though I understand the reason for it, but Nancy Pelosi has been excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

“After numerous attempts to speak with Speaker Pelosi to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, [and] the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion,” Cordileone summarized in a Twitter post attached to a letter announcing the decision.

“There can be no more extreme example of … cultural depravity than when direct attacks on human life are enshrined in a nation’s law, celebrated by society, and even paid for by the government,” Cordileone wrote in the opening to the letter, published to the diocese website. “This is why Pope Francis, as much as any pope in living memory, has repeatedly and vividly affirmed the Church’s clear and constant teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil.”

Who Do You Trust?

Do you trust your doctor?  I don't.  Unfortunately, the medical profession has been lying to the public ever since pandemic started.  I had to go to a medical facility to take my wife's sleep monitor back to the office to be confronted with a mask requirement to enter.  But we know, indeed have known for years now, is that masks do not work to stop the spread of respiratory virus.  But, they say we have sick vulnerable people coming here.  Yes, I understand, but going back to fact that masks don't work, why require them?  The again say, well people feel safer with masks.  Well, yes, they do because you told them they would be safer,  But why did you do that knowing that masks don't work?  Of course, the medical profession can not answer, so they constantly deflect.

Mark Landsbaum has an article at the American Thinker entitled The Problem of Trust that makes point that when the people lose trust in their institutions and government, things to not end well.

If you don’t trust a merchant, will you do business with him? If you don’t trust a lawyer, would you rely on his advice? If you distrust a doctor, would you let him operate on you?

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas said out loud what should by now be obvious to everyone.

“I no longer have trust in the institution,” Thomas said of the high court after the leak of a draft decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Thomas was appalled by the breach of the court’s tradition of keeping tentative decisions secret until they are released in final form.

...snip...

Any dispassionate assessment must conclude that what’s poisoned the high court to the point of being untrustworthy long ago spread to every institution in the land.

“Whom do you trust?” Make a list. It will be short, if you’re honest. Then make a list of the people, groups, and institutions you don’t trust. Not short at all.

The nation was founded on the idea of mistrust, which is why power was distributed over three branches of government, which were strictly limited in the things delegated to them. We tend to forget that the sovereign individual states created the Federal government, not the other way around. Somehow, beginning with the turn of the 20th century, the Federal government began acquiring power at the expense of the states, and as the 21st century turned, now at the expense of the people as well. The original plan had the House of Representatives directly elected by the people. The Senators were designated by the state legislators to represent the states' interest. The President was elected by the Electoral College. The plan was both elegant, and did indeed spread power among a wide variety of competing interests. We need to return to that set up.

When people are constrained by their overlords and can’t achieve their desires within the system, they either conform or change the system. How many of you are content with efforts so far to change the system? If you cannot trust that to happen, what’s next? In our radically polarized nation, what are the odds Republicans and Democrats can trust each other to give them a fair shake?

If Americans retain any of the stuff that gave our Founders backbone and courage, will there be civil disobedience? Revolution? Another secession by those who want to govern themselves, as did the colonists? Is it reasonable to trust in a more civil resolution?

The Left Is Engaging In Spiritual Combat. The Right Better Understand It

 There was a time when those of us on the right thought that our political opponents were misguided, perhaps, but not evil.  And for decades we continued to debate the issues, and we watched as those on the Left continued to enact policies and laws that offended conservatives and the Constitution.  Of late we have seen abortion become an issue and the Left is waging an ugly war to save it.  What kind of people can justify such a thing?  But the truth is, whether it is Social Security and Medicare, or Obamacare, or guns and self-defense, too many Leftist ideas have done incredible harm to the Constitution and limited government. 

We were assured that these policies and laws were "progressive."  Yet these policies and laws looked to conservatives not as progress but its opposite, regress.  In recent years, the Left has even turned to grooming our children. teaching them that they can decide which sex to be.  Of course, this is made up magical thinking, but it has an evil purpose.

At the American Thinker today, Philip Alrich makes the connections that the rest of us have been reluctant to make. His article Liberalism and the Problem of Evil. The one bone I would pick with Alrich's article is that he mischaracterizes the Left as "liberal." Not everyone who votes Democrat is evil. But the party itself has been in thrall to evil for a very long time.  The Left has a history of racism, for example, and it continues to this day.

No one can speak of evil without mentioning its attraction to the Democrat Party, which is now the party of official racism in America. Political evil is a contagion of psychological immaturity, self-delusion, and counterfeit justification, and its virus has spread throughout America's liberal ruling class. Its influence has scoured our nation of its fundamental values, and leftists are intent upon creating a state apparatus that facilitates the separation of children from their parents, criminals from justice, and citizens from the Bill of Rights. This is a call to Marxist socialism that has no past and no possibility of a future. This is evil come to do business with the Democrat Party, and it is evil on a national scale. Civilization must protect the weakest, but leftist ideology targets and crushes those who are unable to resist the powerful forces of state coercion. There is no civilization on the far side of Marxism.

Modern liberalism is a template for the genesis of evil that is now possible in democratic systems. It is a product of the intellectual syphilis that comes of inbreeding elitist populations. Liberals have already written the script for America's decline and fall, and there is no suggestion of a democratic ending. The people are the nation: that is what democracy looks like. The people, at first, create the government they want; but at last, and by slow degrees, government creates the society it needs. It is the fate of democratic societies that allow, by their own election, the assassins of freedom into the center of government.

...snip...

We have reached a point in our political affairs in which we are voting for either limited government and a free society or unlimited government and a society in chains. There can be no possible reconciliation of these differences. The appalling distance between the commonsense problem solving of conservative government and the left's radical template of compulsory thought and behavior has resulted in a degenerative condition of political stasis in which the governing party is compelled to tear down the accomplishments of the previous administration, and the governed are reduced to the status of refugees from the conflict over power. The willful destruction of our democratic institutions proves how barbaric liberals can be with the levers of power in their hands. Liberals are like Tolkien's wizards of Middle Earth: they cannot build the things that please them; they can only destroy the things that annoy them. And a constitution that tells the government what it cannot do annoys them greatly.

The children of the left want nothing to do with government or way of life they had no part in creating. They are insurrectionists. They are wrong with purpose and maliciously resolved to break the trust we hold in our democratic institutions. Before all else, this must be understood if we are to develop a social consciousness of the political evil rooted and metastasizing in liberal culture, for injustices done to us by our equals are more harmful than injustices done to us by tyranny. The urge to target, threaten, and silence, to bring harm to millions of citizens who disagree with the liberal party's deviant ideology, is characteristic of what psychiatry calls a "collective delusional system" -- a communal psychological disorder -- and the bringers of harm should be stigmatized and removed from the instruments of power.

It has been ever thus since man took a bite of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the end, only God can end the current reign of the Left. It is our job to see to it that we are on His side, for surely, He has a side in this fight against the Evil One. Alrich lays it out for us, as plainly as anyone. For more in-depth reading, I suggest Immortal Combat by Father Dwight Longenecker. It will be eye opening.

Things Left Unsaid in the Abortion Debate

 Dustin Ashe says What Must Be Said on Abortion in an article at the American Thinker today. Spoiler alert, the thing that must be said about abortion is that it kills a human life.

For over a week now, our country has been tossed asunder once again by the abortion issue because Justice Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health was leaked and published in Politico. We knew the day was coming when the Supreme Court would issue its decision, but the leak has hastened the debate, as well as being a surprise attack on the integrity of the Court and the sanctity of our nation’s constitutional rule of law. We still don’t know whether riots, protests, and doxing conservative justices can alter the Court’s tentative decision.

We have been subjected to yet another unsolicited primer in the abortion debate from both sides. However, much has been left unsaid or deftly side-stepped. That’s because too much of the abortion question addresses the end of a baby’s life, not the beginning. Addressing those topics is critical to having a fully informed position.

But before Ashe gets to the bottom line, he explains that the problem starts with the hook up culture, and casual sex. As he writes, abstinence has proven to be 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and thus avoiding abortion. But especially in the 1960s, the issue of casual sex became a personal choice, but the solution for an unwanted pregnancy became a social responsibility. But in reality, the choice to have sex is a personal choice, demanding a personal responsibility for the consequences of it.

If a woman does not want to get pregnant, or if a man does not want his hookup, lover, or girlfriend to get pregnant, then that person can choose not to have sex in the first place or choose adequate preventative measures. The pro-choice argument ignores prevention and kicks in only when prevention fails. It then relies solely on abortion as the only viable alternative. The argument goes this way: Society must accept whatever flows from an individual exercising his/her freedom, sexual intercourse must be allowed to occur between consenting adults and, if conception and an unwanted pregnancy result, it is a societal problem and not one of personal responsibility. Those pro-choice voices demand that their birth control, abortion, or pregnancy and delivery must come free of charge because, while it’s their choice and their pregnancy, it’s still our responsibility.

Finally, Ashe gets to the horror of abortion, that it is the taking of a human life, and without dure process. A child is a gift from God, as any childless couple can tell you. Childless couples have always suffered from childlessness. See Abraham and Sarah in the book of Genesis. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply for our own good. But he also commanded us not to kill our progeny.

There was once a fundamental understanding among people of goodwill that one’s rights extended only as far as and up to the point at which another’s rights extended. Are we no longer committed to the God-given and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans? How can we, as free people claim that these are our national and individual rights while denying these same rights to those who do not have the power to speak for themselves?

Americans are rightly jealous guardians of the freedoms that were set forth in our Declaration of Independence as “inalienable” and “self-evident.” But what about the right to life? In the abortion debate, the rights of the individual human life in the mother’s womb are completely denied. So, who among us can honestly stand, proclaim, and affirm our “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them,” while denying those same rights to another human life as if their personal choice and personal freedom supersede another’s right to life?

Getting Our Heads Out Of Our Tik Toc

 Jeffrey Folks at the American Thinker today has a post entitled The Silent Invasion and War at Home in which he points out that the war in Ukraine is being used a distraction from what is a very real war at home.

It has been chilling to watch the steady number of deaths, the territory invaded, the executions and rapes, the fear and the flight. It is especially shocking because we had peace for so long, but now we see all the possibilities of evil coming out.

I'm not talking about Ukraine — I'm speaking of an invasion right here in the United States. Migrants, mostly Hispanic, are entering the U.S. at the rate of at least 2 million per year — or 20 million in the next decade — and with them come hundreds of thousands of violent gang members. Meanwhile, our own inner-city gangs are spreading out into affluent suburban areas, invading high-end shopping areas and stealing from stores and individuals, often at gunpoint and with deadly consequences. I am not being alarmist or racist. I am simply describing what is happening and pointing out the future state of affairs if we do nothing. If anything, my numbers are low, and my words cannot describe the horror of what is happening.

I would note that these thugs are indiscriminant offenders, committing crimes against all races, but they tend to prey most heavily on blacks and hispanics because of course, those are the people among whom they live. They live there because they hope to blend in, and not stand out. And of course, the wine swilling limosine liberals have the motives for these gang members crimes all wrong. They say it is society's fault. But if that were true, why doesn't everybody turn who is poor turn to crime?

The fact is that crime, like everything else, responds to incentives. If you make it more profitable by lowering the consequences, you get more of it. If you up the consequences and the risks, you get less of it. All of this is known already. Indeed, we have always known these things. 

Shakespeare's prescription, that the first thing we do is kill the lawyers is perhaps extreme. But we do need to get boot the Soros prosecutors out of office for sure. George Soros did not spend millions putting them in place for the benefit of the public.  Of course, he wanted to create chaos, and succeeded.  We also need to boot out any judges who have similar ideologies. But then we need to again not only fund the police, but back them up. And we have to tell the Leftists who romanticize cop killers as some sort of Robin Hoods to knock it the hell off. Even the real Robin Hood was not the legend of "Robin Hood." He made his living preying on the wealthy. And he preyed on the wealthy because that was where the money was.

One does not defeat an enemy by allowing it to murder, steal, and rape without resistance. The only way is to recognize that we have been invaded, and we are at war. War requires its own way of thinking and its own tactics and strategy. At present, we arrest criminals (a few of them, since 54% of reported violent crimes and more than 75% overall go unsolved), charge them with a lesser offense, release them (in many places without bail), and watch them go right back to committing crimes. That is the wrong strategy for a state of war.

It is possible to defeat our enemy, but it will take a change of attitude. We must be willing to fund our police at maximum levels, support our police in their dangerous work, and indemnify them against unreasonable prosecution in their use of force, and we must elect prosecutors who actually prosecute this army of invaders. The recall of L.A. district attorney George Gascón might be a good start.

We have been in similary straits before. Both in the 1930s crime wave, and in the 1960s spike in crimes. The solution in each case was similar. We need to recognize we are at war, and we need to get our heads out of our Tik Toc and take action before it is too late.

The Ghoulish Death Cult

 I am bringing an interesting article today to gentle readers, who, I suspect are like myself, more intellectually involved in issues like abortion, and less emotionally involved.  The use of the intellect over the emotion is an important Christian concept.  God gave man the ability to reason for a reason.  Man is to use his reasoning ability to survive in the world.  Notoriously, we do not have natural weapons, like the speed of the deer, or sharp claws like the lion, or great physical power like the bear.  What we do have is our wits.

The article comes from the American Thinker today by Rabbi Michael Barclay entitled Abortion: A Jewish Perspective on a Passionate Issue. Of course, we all know the story of the binding of Issaac, Abraham's only son, and the sole guarantor of God's promise to Abraham. It was a test of Abraham's loyalty. But it was also to show the future Israelites that God did not condone child sacrifice, as the cultures around them did. This has been taken by faithful Christians to mean that abortion under all circumstances is not permitted. Yet the Jews did allow abortions in certain rare cases, and the reasons are enlightening.

In Judaism, there is a huge importance placed on pro-creation, based on the blessing found in Genesis 1:28 that we “should be fruitful and multiply” that is repeated to Jacob (Gen 35:11). But we also believe that sexuality is not only for pro-creation, but for pleasure based upon the words of Exodus 21:10, “a man must not diminish his wife’s duty of marriage”. It is accepted as far back as 2000 years ago that the obligation to pro-create is upon the man (the commandment is given to men), and not to women.

“The man is required to be fruitful and multiple, but not the woman.” (Mishna Yevamot 6:6). This is a recognition of a woman’s rights, and a man’s responsibility. It is her body, and she should not be forced to make a decision between having children or being celibate. In Judaism, while there is a commandment for pro-creation, there is also a commandment for pleasure, and so no argument can be devised against or for abortion based on human sexuality being used only for the purpose of creation (this is different than many other faiths).

So, we see that a man may not withhold his seed from his wife (that is the true sin on Onan) but can not force himself upon her either. Women do have rights! Thus the "Handmaids Tale" uniforms are for those uninformed atheists. They have no place in Christian life. (Also note the distinction with Islam, where the women have no rights.) But let's read on.

The traditional set of laws regarding abortion begin with the legal status of the fetus. The Talmud clearly states, “the fetus is regarded as one of the limbs of the mother” (Gittin 23b). This understanding is based on specific biblical understandings. If an animal is bought, and then found to be pregnant, the future animal belongs to the new owner. (Talmud Bava Kama 78a). If a pregnant woman converts, her child does not have to go through conversion upon birth (Talmud Yevamot 78a), and a fetus has no rights of acquisition (Talmud Bava Batra 142a). Most importantly, it says in Exodus 21:22 that if a pregnant woman is hurt by a man so that her unborn baby dies, the man is to be punished by paying “what the judges determine”; but if that she dies then the perpetrator is executed. The death of a fetus is a tort charge, punishable by monetary relief; while the death of a mother is a capital crime. This biblical text demonstrates that killing a fetus is criminal, although not a capital crime.

At first glance, it might seem that since the fetus has no legal rights, abortion would be allowed in any instance. This is not the case.

From the time of ancient Sages through the Middle Ages until today, it is a Jewish law that a person has no right to inflict damage upon the human body, even upon himself. We are responsible for every part of our body as a Divine gift. Based on this understanding, since the fetus is considered a “limb” of the mother; abortion by choice is forbidden because it is equivalent to hurting one’s self.

Please read the whole article. It is enlightening. And note that damaging the Divine Image is the basis of the Commandment against murder and other sins described in the Jewish law.  But the bottom line is that Jewish law does allow abortions for the cases where bearing the child to full term would cause the mother great physical harm or death. They even allow it for extreme psychological reasons such as rape and incest. Interestingly, such are the carve outs being proposed in states that generally ban abortion.

One of the most interesting discussions bears upon the "secrets of God" where the ancient Jews tried to decide at what point ensoulment takes place. This is akin to current arguments about when a fetus becomes human. The argument that from the moment of conception it can not be anything other than human is based on the obvious (I hope) fact that a man and a woman can not bear anything else. Biology doesn't work that way. Still, others see a fetus as a lump of cells, and nothing more. To me, the fetal heart beat laws are a good compromise. These laws do not permit abortion after around 12 weeks, when a heart can be detected beating in the growing child. Yet even these laws allow for abortion under very limited reasons, dealing with the life of the mother, and rape or incest.

The current crying and gnashing of teeth over the overturning of a poorly decided opinion has torn the mask off of people who have attempted to be seen as compassionate and caring. But they have proved themselves instead to be a ghoulish death cult.  It doesn't end abortion, but instead returns it to the states where it rightly belongs, and to the voters of each state, whose collective conscience should have been consulted.

So Much Bull Sh...er...Manure

 There is a reason farmers use artificial fertilizers, as opposed to organic fertilizers like manure and compost.  Frankly, they would not be able to produce enough food to feed the world.  There simply is not enough manure in the world.  In the United States, so called "organic farming" can exist on smaller farms that have both animals and a variety of crops.  It requires letting a quarter of your land to lie fallow in any year, which is where you might pasture animals.  It requires a return to mostly small family farms, and it would require much more of our population to work at farming.

Is that the society we want?

Then there are countries with incredibly poor soil.  Fertilizers have helped to give these countries food security.  Indeed, that is what Andrea Widburg is writing about at the American Thinker entitled Sri Lanka shows what happens when we follow environmentalist principles. I doubt Samantha Power has ever grown a single vegetable in her life, let alone run a farm. And make no mistake, a farm is a business, that must make a profit by selling the produce of the farm to pay all of the expenses and hopefully bring a small profit. But I doubt Power understands that either.

Sri Lanka is facing agricultural collapse, which is a disaster in a nation that has only recently raised itself out of poverty...thanks to its agricultural growth. The cause is the outgoing government's decision to follow the environmentalist path and use only natural fertilizer. Meanwhile, here in America, Samantha Power, who is the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, is pleased that the War in Ukraine is stopping the flow of fertilizer from Russia, allowing the world to go organic.

...snip...

What's so ironic about the situation is that, according to the same article from the London Times, it was synthetic fertilizer that turned Sri Lanka into a major agricultural exporter. Still, the greenies had to have their way, and now the economy is collapsing, and domestic food prices in Sri Lanka have quadrupled.

Additionally, the prime minister who spearheaded this disaster has resigned; there are running battles in the capital city and troops on the street; there are major shortages of essentials such as food, medicines, and oil; and power cuts are becoming the norm.

Many on the Left believe the world is overpopulated, which I believe is one of the reasons for their hysterical fear of the loss of abortion. It seems ghoulish, but I think they would rather see people starve to death in order to reduce the population. It is unfortunate that the world's population will contract quite naturally without their "help."