Planned Parenthood - Racist Donations Welcome: We Abort Black Babies
A new video reveals Planned Parenthood employees in both Oklahoma and New Mexico complying with an undercover "donor" requesting that his money be used specifically to abort an African-American child who might someday steal his own child's spot in college through "affirmative action." When James O'Keefe, the undercover "donor," asked if a donation could be used for aborting a black child, a PP staffer from Tulsa responded, "We can definitely designate it for an African-American."
"Planned Parenthood has no shame in accepting donations to purposely abort minority populations. People have forgotten the organization was founded on these principles and has continued to operate under these same racist views for decades," Lila Rose, editor of The Advocate, the pro-life UCLA publication responsible for the investigations, told LifeNews.com. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, once stated, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
"It's a jolting reminder that abortion is a big business, regardless of what the politicians and the special interest groups say and given that Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million in federal funding every year, it's time Congress investigate these extremely disturbing business practices," stated Rose. "Planned Parenthood must be held accountable for their actions. No one is calling them out - including supposedly minority civil rights groups like the ACLU and NAACP - for their despicable actions."
In late February, the Advocate released a transcript of a recorded conversion with Autumn Kersey, vice president of marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho, in which Kersey accepted money specifically to eliminate an African-American child who could pose a threat to the son of the white "donor" through "affirmative action."
Last Spring, Rose posed as a 15-year-old seeking an abortion for the child conceived with her 23-year-old "boyfriend," played by O'Keefe. Rose recorded a Santa Monica, CA PP employee encouraging her to lie about her age so that the organization would not have to report her situation as statutory rape. The Advocate's undercover investigations are only part of a series of shocking PP behavior that have caused many to call for extensive examination of the organization that reported receiving $336 million in taxpayer funding during 2006.
To avoid possible construction boycotts or other protests, the Aurora, Illinois PP presented itself as on building permits as Gemini Office Development before opening as the largest PP facility in the United States. PP of Kansas and Mid-Missouri is facing a 107-count criminal complaint relating to the manufacturing or forging of documents and the abortion of post-viable children. The California affiliates are facing a suit filed by a former PP vice president exposing $180 million in fraud. The national PP organization closed two South Florida PP affiliates itself after reports from employees regarding improper accounting of funds.
For Rome it is Very Clear - Pro-Abortion Politicians 'Must' be Denied Communion
Some Catholic Bishops in North America seem to be on a different page from the Vatican when it comes to reception of Communion for Catholic politicians who support abortion. Since the controversy came to a head in the 2004 US federal election, most Catholic bishops in the US have either remained silent on the issue, or have made softer statements than the authoritative word from Rome: a word that has been re-affirmed many times and continues to be reasserted regularly. Most recently, Francis Cardinal Arinze, speaking at a Catholic family conference in Ohio last November, referred to a letter on the subject sent by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who said that such politicians "must" be "refused" Communion.
Video footage, posted recently by the conference organisers and made available on YouTube, shows Cardinal Arinze, the head of Vatican office of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, replying to the question of pro-abortion politicians and the inaction of their bishops. He said "You may have heard about the letter which the present Holy Father, as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to American bishops on that issue, so the matter is very clear." He told those in attendance that the question is not one of Church teaching, but of the immutable divine law of God. "It isn't just that they [the politicians in question] have gone against church teaching, but they have gone against divine law; thou shalt not kill."
But since the insistence of Rome has failed to induce positive action from most bishops in the North American hierarchy and abroad, reporters continue to ask the same questions. Romans in the know, however, repeat that the Pope's letter on the matter has solved the issue. LifeSiteNews.com spoke last month about the issue with Msgr. Andrew R. Baker a professor at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum) in Rome, one of Rome's major historic institutions. Professor Baker told LifeSiteNews.com, "Certainly you'd have to apply that famous canon of 915 that says one who persists in manifest grave sin should not be admitted to Holy Communion." "And I think the possibility of looking at the moral principles outlined in the letter attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger that came a number of years ago - those are good moral principles to apply that canon 915."
Professor Baker's opinion is a repetition of that given in Ohio by Cardinal Arinze, who told conferees that he agrees action ought to be taken against bishops who refuse to enforce Canon 915. Arinze elicited much laughter and applause when he made the analogy, "To the person who says, 'Personally I'm against abortion, but if people what to do it, I'll leave them free', you could say, 'You are a member of the senate or the congress, personally I'm not in favour of shooting the whole lot of you, but if somebody else wants to shoot all of you in the Senate, or all of you in Congress, it's just pro-choice for that person, but personally, I'm not in favour.'
"That is what he is saying. He's saying he's personally not in favour of killing these millions of children in the womb, but if others want to do it, that's pro-choice. That's what he is saying. "And then you ask, what does the Holy See do? Why doesn't the Pope send 12 Swiss Guards to arrest them all?" Arinze said that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?
"Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practising Catholic', should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that."
FCC puts muzzle on TV profanity
It is easy these days to look at TV programming and feel the urge to clean house. Crime shows lay out the most grisly of acts committed by real or imaginary violent criminals. Reality shows peer into the most embarrassingly personal details (again, real or imaginary) of the lives of would-be or former celebrities. But when the government decides it should do the cleaning in the name of public decency, everyone should be concerned about where we are headed as a nation.
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case of the Federal Communications Commission vs. Fox Television Stations, in which the agency fined Fox over "fleeting" use of profanities on live awards shows aired in 2002 and 2003. Fox, with support from ABC, CBS and NBC, sued the commission, saying that it went against its own policy about one-time utterances by imposing the fines. A lower court sided with Fox, prompting the FCC and the Bush administration to appeal to the high court. For the record, the profanities were variations on the "f-word" and "s...," uttered by Bono, Nicole Richie and Cher, words this newspaper chooses not to spell out - the operative word for purposes of this editorial being "chooses."
This would be the first case on broadcast decency to go before the Supreme Court in 30 years, and it may be that the justices agreed to hear the case because the appeals court suggested the FCC's policy violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. In our opinion the policy is, indeed, unconstitutional. The guarantees of free speech in the First Amendment are broad, and the only clear exceptions as determined by the Supreme Court over the years have been speech that libels or defames a private individual, or speech that risks public safety. So when government opts to decide what words may or may not be spoken, it treads on rights intended by our nation's founders.
Certainly, that is not to say that the words in this case constitute great family entertainment. But when it comes to speech and the marketplace of ideas, it is those in the marketplace itself - the broadcast networks and the viewers - who should be allowed to police themselves. The networks all have departments of standards and practices to patrol the content of their programming. In the past few years, they have all adopted video and audio delay of several seconds for live broadcasts to black out or bleep out offensive material. And they have the very critical influence of commercial sponsors, most of whom do not want to alienate any group of viewers.
On the viewing side, there is an array of controls available for parents to monitor and block shows from their children, and adults who may be offended can choose for themselves what to watch.
What does the FCC vs. Fox case mean in practical terms? Fox wants to be able to continue to air live programs without fear of fines, which can run as high as $325,000 per incident. If the court finds against the networks, some of their executives have suggested they would cease live broadcasts. Shows such as the Academy Awards and Grammys would be edited and aired sometime after the event. That might not be such a big loss, in the minds of many viewers. The point is to keep speech free. Once the government can decide what is obscene, they can easily move on to what is "dangerous" speech because it disagrees with the politics of the current administration. The other word for it is censorship, and that is a dirty word, indeed.
A 12-Step Program For Recovering Liberals
by Burt Prelutsky
Most 12-step programs start out by requiring that people have to understand that they're powerless over their addiction and that only by turning their lives over to a Power greater than themselves can they be restored to sanity. Far be it from me to suggest that I am that Power, but clearly someone has to step in and try to rescue these poor liberal souls. Even the most harebrained among them deserves that much.
First, though, they have to acknowledge that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Charles Rangel, Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, are not moderates, but, rather, leftists with a Socialist agenda. Furthermore, they must recognize that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, CNN, the three major networks, the news magazines and the New Yorker, are not objective in their reporting of political events, and neither are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, in their commentary. If these entities and individuals are not on the payroll of the DNC, they certainly should be. They certainly put in longer hours than Howard Dean.
Step #1: It is high time that every American be guaranteed the right to speak freely. It is not reserved solely for left-wing college students who wish to take advantage of the first amendment to shout down conservatives. At the same time, they must not construe the conservative's right to dismiss them as arrogant idiots as censorship.
Step #2: Affirmative action argues that African Americans and Latinos are intellectually inferior and are unable to compete academically unless other students are handicapped because of their race. Interestingly enough, when blacks and Hispanic students are given these unfair advantages, it's rarely at any cost to white students, whose rate of college admissions remains constant; instead, it's nearly always another minority group, Asians, who pay the price. This is what left-wingers refer to as leveling the playing field.
Step #3: Liberals always claim to be in favor of higher taxes, agreeing with Bill Clinton that the government invariably spends money more wisely than those who actually earn it. However, such prominent proponents of higher taxes as George Soros, Ted Kennedy and Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry, protect their own otherwise taxable income through trusts and offshore accounts. Obviously, any American who believes higher taxes are a good thing can do the honorable thing by spurning all deductions and paying Uncle Sam everything up to 100% of his income.
Step #4: Even the most secular of liberals seems to believe that Jimmy Carter is a saint. The evidence for this seems to be that he has on occasion posed with a hammer in his hand at Habitant for Humanity building sites and is constantly walking around with a expression on his face that suggests he has just forgiven Pontius Pilate for betraying him. This is the same fellow, let us never forget, who called Yasser Arafat his good friend and who has accepted untold millions of dollars from Arab cut-throats, who ask nothing in return except that he go on insisting that there would be peace in the Middle East if only those darn Israelis would disappear from the face of the earth.
Step #5: Stop insisting that all wars are bad. It only makes you sound daft. Carrying signs that equate a U.S. president, any U.S. president, with Adolph Hitler is not only rude, but suggests you're certifiably nuts. Every president has left office right on schedule. Aside from FDR, who just happened to get elected four times, not one of them has remained in office beyond eight years. On the other hand, Hitler ran Germany for 12 years and only death and the allied forces brought that to an end; Stalin ran the Soviet show for 31 years; while that hero of the left, Fidel Castro, held the reins, not to mention the whip, for about 50 years.
Step #6: Repeat after me, "Separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the Constitution. The first amendment does not require the removal of Christmas trees from the village green, the 10 Commandments from court house walls or "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. All it does is forbid Congress from establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England, and anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar and, most likely, a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Step #7: Stop using the word "big" as a pejorative. There is nothing intrinsically bad about big oil, big agriculture or big pharmaceuticals. Overall, they do a very good job of keeping our cars on the road, food on our tables and most of us over 50 alive and functioning. On the other hand, big government, which so many liberals simply adore, represents a usurpation of the allegedly inalienable rights of individuals. A quick perusal of the Constitution should convince you that beyond declaring war, forging treaties, overseeing patents, printing money, running the post office, collecting taxes and protecting our borders -- and a few other things that Washington doesn't do at all well these days -- the federal government has very limited responsibilities.
Step #8: Acknowledge that the United Nations is, in the main, an aggregation of venal diplomats who live high off the hog in New York City while representing the most corrupt and vicious regimes in the history of the world. Only a fool or a diplomat would continue to suggest that this gang of well-dressed thugs possesses anything resembling moral authority.
Step #9: Do not keep insisting that at a time when nearly all the large scale evil in the world is being perpetrated by Muslims that racial profiling is anything but a sensible approach to airport security. During WWII, Swedish Americans were not suspected of performing espionage for the Axis powers and for a very good reason; namely, because they weren't performing espionage for the Axis powers. These days, their Swedish American children and grandchildren are not suspected of trying to blow up airlines, but the smarmy bureaucrats insist on pretending that they're every bit as likely to be up to mischief as a bunch of 25-year-old Osama bin Laden look-alikes from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Step #10: Stop trying to pretend that illegal aliens are the same as legal immigrants just so you can claim the moral high ground and accuse those of us who are opposed to open borders of being racists.
Step #11: Once and for all, stop forgiving murderers. Whether or not you're in favor of capital punishment, only the victim of a crime has the right to grant forgiveness. And inasmuch as the killer has deprived his victim of that ability, don't take it upon yourself. It doesn't prove how compassionate you are, only that you're as sanctimonious and as self-aggrandizing as, say, Jimmy Carter.
Step #12: Stop bashing the U.S. military and the Boy Scouts. The only reason you have the ability to shoot your mouth off is because men and women braver and better than you sacrificed life and limb for your right to do so. As for the Boy Scouts, they are absolutely right to keep homosexuals from taking youngsters on camping trips. While it's true that many gays are perfectly fine people and that very few homosexuals are pedophiles, there's no reason on earth to take unnecessary risks just so we can all prove how broadminded we are. For what it's worth, as decent as most Catholic priests are, I wouldn't let them take youngsters into the woods, either. It's fine to be compassionate and understanding, but let the gays among us be understanding for a change and acknowledge that, every so often, commonsense should trump political correctness.
And, finally, making this a baker's dozen, Step #13: Let us all agree that while being a woman, a black, a Jew, a Catholic, a Mormon or even a gay, for that matter, should in no way preclude anyone from being elected president of the United States, none of those things constitutes a very good reason to vote for someone.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.