Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Despite all the Leftist attempts to crush it, old-fashioned chivalry lives on in America

Would feminists have preferred it if the women had died?  Probably.  They are deranged enough for that

Besides all being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the morning of July 20, Jansen Young, Samantha Yowler and Amanda Lindgren have one other thing in common: each was saved from James Holmes’ murderous rampage by their loving, heroic boyfriends.

Young, Yowler and Lindgren all survived the Batman Movie Massacre this past Friday because their boyfriends jumped on top of them and used their own bodies to shield them from the gunfire. That act of courageousness came at a cost, though, as Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves all wound up losing their own lives in the process.


Effects of homosexual parenting

"It's Time for Mark Regnerus to Get Collectively Dumped," read one online headline. The outrage was in response to a study that Regnerus, a professor in the department of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin, released earlier this summer. His crime? Doing research on the effects of same-sex parenting on children. The shamelessness of the blogosphere's eruption turned outrageous when an activist in New York wrote to the university, accusing Regnerus of "using misinformation in an attempt to hurt others," prompting the university to open an ethics investigation.

Reading the whole of Regnerus' work, one doesn't get the impression he wants to hurt people. As a social scientist, he looks at the evidence. His New Family Structures Study, while supported and welcomed by advocates of traditional marriage, wasn't exactly made to order. Though the study's findings suggest that young-adult children of parents who have been involved in same-sex relationships are may have a heightened susceptibility to emotional and social problems, Regnerus took pains to be fair. "The political take-home message of the NFSS ... is unclear," Regnerus writes.

"On the one hand, the instability detected in the NFSS could translate into a call for extending the relative security afforded by marriage to gay and lesbian couples. On the other hand, it may suggest that (instability) ... is just too common among same-sex couples to take the social gamble of spending significant political and economic capital" on supporting them, he writes. Sounds more like a scientist than an activist.

But therein lies the reason for the anger this study has roused: The evidence, incomplete and imperfect as it is, points to the stability of a male-female, married model. And that's a threat to certain parties.

The marriage-overhaul movement asserts that there is a scientific consensus that doesn't quite exist. "One argument propelling the judicial activism to redefine marriage is that it makes no difference whether a child is raised by same-sex parents instead of a traditional, married mother and father," Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, points out.

Obviously, there is not a strong body of research on same-sex parenting, given it's a social experiment in an embryonic stage. Some would like to keep investigation and reflection away from the march of ideology into the lives of children.

The fury this study has elicited from the left hits on a key question: In a culture that claims to so often value tolerance above all other values, do we tolerate non-sexual-revolutionary values when it comes to issues of marriage and family?

This is all part of a trend toward the marginalization of religion that we have seen most notably in the debate over that pernicious Department of Health and Human Services mandate, wherein religious institutions and employers are being told that practicing their faith is illegal if it involves not purchasing or offering insurance plans that include contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drug coverage.

At a time when a trilogy about sadomasochism is all the literary rage, surely there's room for a little love and marriage and the baby carriage" somewhere in our culture? And for asking whether there might be sociological advantages to this approach?

Let's take a deep breath, and really look at some of the most heated rhetoric accusing Catholics or Republicans or a social scientist in Texas of waging a "war on women" or some other kind of supposedly hurtful or hateful cause. These are the questions we should be raising. Do we tolerate questioning the effects of our sexual choices, and even about the purpose of sex, in the public square? Do we care enough about the welfare of children to have a robust scientific, cultural, moral and political debate?

In a recent interview, Elton John talked about his son, born of a surrogate in California and conceived with a donated egg, that he has with his longtime male partner. Said John: "It's going to be heartbreaking for him to grow up and realize he hasn't got a mummy."

Thank you, Sir Elton, for opening a door. Now can we let Professor Regnerus get back to work?


President Obama's Covert Zeal for Abortion

Abraham Lincoln faced a similar problem in 1854 when he spoke of the “covert zeal” of President Franklin Pierce and Sen. Steven A. Douglas for the spread of slavery. These leading Democrats never said they were in favor of slavery. They simply viewed the right of whites to choose slavery for blacks as a “sacred principle of self government.”Lincoln abhorred this subterfuge.

President Obama doesn't talk about abortion much. He famously tried to avoid the question in 2008 when Pastor Rick Warren asked him what rights, if any, unborn children have. "The answer to that question is above my pay grade," he said then. With his strong election victory,Barack Obama was promoted to the office where the buck stops, where such questions demand an answer. His answer has been clear: None. The unborn have no rights at any time, in any context.

President Obama has been the most pro-abortion president in history. That was a distinction not easily won, especially after eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They famously said abortion should be "safe,legal and rare." That seemed to be a middle path. But the only place they made abortion rare was in Antarctica. President Clinton sent out the Red Cable to all U.S. Embassies ordering them to press their host countries to make abortion on demand legal and paid for by the state.

Yet, Hillary told Newsweek abortion is "wrong."(October 31, 1994 issue). She only said it once in her entire career. Still,she said it.

Barack Obama has never said that. From his first public office, he has been an advocate for abortion on demand. He led the fight in the Illinois State Senate to deny protection for newborn children who survive abortion attempts. These children are U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. And just as too many states denied "equal protection of the laws" to black Americans under a century of unjust Jim Crow laws, Barack Obama denied protection of Illinois laws to newborns in the Land of Lincoln because they had been targeted for abortion. It is tragically ironic that a disproportionate number of these late term botched abortions are performed on minority women.

As president, Bill Clinton twice vetoed the ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. Elena Kagan strongly urged him to veto the law. President Obama elevated Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. This outspoken advocate of Partial-Birth Abortion, not surprisingly, voted to approve Obamacare--the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. We can have little doubt as to how Kagan will rule if the lawsuits filed by dozens of Catholic dioceses make it to the Supreme Court. She is unlikely to surprise and shock any liberal abortion advocates as Chief Justice John Roberts shocked and appalled millions of pro-lifers with his last minute shift of position. For pro-lifers, the shocks and the surprises only come one way with the Supreme Court. Liberal pro-abortion advocates never find one of their own jumping the traces. They vote in lockstep to uphold the Culture of Death.

Like the Clintons, President Obama opposed the ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer described what she saw in a Partial-Birth Abortion. It requires re-reading now: "I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the sci he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

Just reading about such a horror led pro-choice liberal columnist Richard Cohen to oppose it.

    "...the fact remains that the anti-abortion people are on to something. Late-term abortions may be necessary, but you cannot read about them without feeling diminished as a human being. Something awful has happened, and simply as a matter of principle we ought to be opposed. We ought to say, in short, that this procedure cannot be used--that late-term abortions cannot be permitted at all--unless we absolutely have no choice." ["Reason to Shudder," Washington Post, July 4, 2000].

Cohen said then that people who don't shudder at this nightmare make him shudder. President Obama does not shudder. Nor does Justice Elena Kagan. They have a cool and detached view. To them, the fetus has no rights, ever. And "the right to choose" can mean the right to a dead child.

From his first day in office until now, President Obama has quietly but vigorously pushed the abortion agenda. He records promotional videos for Planned Parenthood. This group kills 340,000 of the more than1,200,000 unborn children killed each year by abortion. Under Obamacare, they will be able to kill millions more.

My Family Research Council colleague, Jeanne Monahan is the Director of FRC's Center for Human Dignity. She has documented the unrelenting push for more abortion here and throughout the world under the Obama administration. Her carefully researched report can be downloaded here.

Another famous pro-choice journalist, Joe Klein, concedes in TIME magazine that ultrasound has changed our understanding of the unborn. It is impossible to deny, he writes, that "that thing in the womb," he writes, "is a human life." From the earliest stages. Joe Klein is haunted. Richard Cohen shudders. We must decide if we shall proceed down the road toward a Culture of Death. That decision is not above our pay grade.


Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities

A few years ago, the Bay Area Center For Voting Research listed the most conservative and most liberal cities in the United States. They did this by looking at how every American city with a population of at least 100,000 voted in the 2004 presidential election. Every vote for George W. Bush was counted as a "conservative" vote, and every vote for John F. Kerry counted as a "liberal" vote. Ballots cast for third party candidates were counted similarly, with votes for the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party nominees counting as "conservative" votes, and votes for the Green Party nominee, the Peace and Freedom Party nominee, and Ralph Nader counting as "liberal" votes.

Cities with more conservative votes than liberal votes are considered conservative cities, and cities with more liberal votes than conservative votes are considered liberal cities. Cities with the highest percentages of conservative votes were deemed the most conservative cities, and cities with the highest percentages of liberal votes were deemed the most liberal cities. Simple enough.

The 15 most conservative and 15 most liberal cities are listed below, along with their violent crime rates.

The 15 most liberal cities in the US:

- Detroit, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gary, Indiana - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Berkeley, California - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Washington, DC - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Oakland, California - 16 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Inglewood, California - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Newark, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cambridge, Massachusetts - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- San Francisco, California - 7 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Flint, Michigan - 24 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Cleveland, Ohio - 14 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hartford, Connecticut - 13 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Paterson, New Jersey - 11 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Baltimore, Maryland - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- New Haven, Connecticut - 15 violent crimes/1,000 residents

The national average is four violent crimes/1,000 residents. Every one of the 15 most liberal cities in the US has a higher violent crime rate than the national average. Twelve of the 15 have a violent crime rate that is at least double the national average. Two of them have a violent crime rate that is six times the national average.

The 15 most conservative cities in the US:

- Provo, Utah - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lubbock, Texas - 9 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Abilene, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Hialeah, Florida - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Plano, Texas - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Colorado Springs, Colorado - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Gilbert, Arizona - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Bakersfield, California - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Lafayette, Louisiana - 8 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Orange, California - 1 violent crime/1,000 residents

- Escondido, California - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Allentown, Pennsylvania - 6 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Mesa, Arizona - 4 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Arlington, Texas - 5 violent crimes/1,000 residents

- Peoria, Arizona - 2 violent crimes/1,000 residents

Again, let's note that the national average is four violent crimes per 1,000 residents. You'll notice that eight of the 15 most conservative cities have violent crime rates at or below the national average. Only two of the 15 have violent crime rates that are twice as high as the national average. The most dangerous conservative city (Lubbock, Texas) is safer than all but four of the liberal cities.

So there is a clear correlation here: Cities with a lot of violent crime tend to vote Democratic, while cities with relatively low levels of violent crime tend to vote Republican. But what is behind this discrepancy? Is it that conservative cities have tougher anti-crime laws than liberal cities, which work to deter violent criminals? Is it that conservatives are more likely to be armed than liberals, so cities full of conservative citizens act as a deterrent against violent crime?

Or is it simply that Democratic voters themselves are just more likely to commit violent crimes than Republican voters?


The author is only pretending to be mystified.  Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat and blacks have a huge crime-rate.  The statistics above just show the black influence


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 WATCHAUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.


No comments: