OBAMA TO FUND U.N. PRO-ABORTION AGENCY

On January 24, President Obama said, “I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund.” He pledged to do this “in the coming weeks,” maintaining that “It is time that we end the politicization of this [abortion] issue.”

Bill Donohue explains the Catholic League’s response:

“The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) claims that it is not pro-abortion. It says that it merely supports ‘reproductive rights.’ Not quite. Starting in 1979, in the first five years of China’s draconian one-child policy, UNFPA gave the program $50 million. To accomplish this goal over the years, which is still ongoing, IUDs have been forced into the wombs of hundreds of millions of women against their will. Indeed, no coercive method is considered taboo, including forced abortion. It was for reasons like these that in 2002 the U.S. State Department blasted China for its affront to human rights. Indeed, Secretary Colin Powell backed the Bush administration’s denial of funds to UNFPA.

“The one-child policy has abetted female infanticide, so much so that there has been a massive decrease in the female population—there are now an estimated 350 million girls missing from China. Other non-white areas of the world where UNFPA concentrates its efforts include Vietnam, Nigeria and Peru. But it can be multicultural: When the genocidal maniac from Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, wanted to tame his people, he invited UNFPA to help reduce the population of Kosovo; he wasn’t unhappy with the results, nor, of course, the means.

“So here we have it. In the name of women’s rights, UNFPA undercuts women. In the name of eradicating poverty, it eradicates the poor. Moreover, it works closely with anti-Catholic groups. And now Obama wants us to bankroll UNFPA. During a recession, no less. To top things off, he is doing all of this in the name of ending the politicization of issues that he says marked previous administrations. The ironies are as endless as they are priceless.”

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
catalyst@catholicleague.org

Obama Plans to Eliminate Privacy

Read the article:

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Economic stimulus? Feds want your medical records
Electronic database to include lawsuit, mental health, abortion, sexual details

HERE

This article details the current administration's plans to make our private health records available to government use - without an option to opt out. Information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people would be collected. Also included is Google's part in the scheme.

It also talks about the next generation of "family planning" where DNA is collected from newborn babies so "experts" can determine whether these children will have criminal tendencies and become a threat to society if they are allowed to grow up. "They want to test every child for 200 conditions, take the child's history and a brain image, and genetics, and come up with a plan for that child," the article quotes.

You NEED to know about this.

And so It begins ...

European countries crack down on 'hate speech'

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 1/26/2009 4:00:00 PM
SOURCE

An author and critic of Islam says the recent decision by a Dutch court to prosecute a Dutch lawmaker for comparing the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf does not bode well for the future of free speech rights in the United States.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March of 2008 with his film Fitna, which juxtaposed Koran verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

The Islamic world complained, but last year prosecutors decided against launching a case against Wilders, saying his strident anti-Islamic statements were "hurtful to Muslims, but not criminal."

But now the Amsterdam Appeals Court has ruled that prosecutors will launch a hate-speech case against Wilders. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He says this case is part of a larger effort to criminalize any discussion of Islam to which jihadists object.

"The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is 57 Muslim governments around the world, is making a concerted effort at the United Nations to criminalize any discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to make recruits and justify their actions," he contends.

Spencer says the Wilders prosecution shows that Europe is falling in line with the Islamic initiative to prosecute anyone who engages in what the Islamists say is hate speech. He adds that could affect the free speech rights of Americans as well.

"Especially at a time when the Obama administration has announced its intention to bring the United States into line with European sensibilities about this and closer to the U.N.," he points out. "And with both Europe and the U.N giving way on free speech at a rapid clip, that bodes ill for our freedoms in the United States."

Relate fires Christian counselor

If you've not been following the story, here's a brief recap:
In brittain, Gary McFarlane worked for Relate as a counselor, then later as a psychosexual therapist. When the question came up regarding giving sexual therapy advice to homosexual couples, MaFarlane said that he could not do so due to his Christian convictions. Relate fired him. McFarlane filed a grievance for unlawful dismissal and lost (although he sort of won since Relate had not followed proper paperwork procedures.)

Now, the question is, was his firing justified? Let's see:
* McFarlane had faithfully served his employer since 2003;
* he did not refuse to serve his clients, just refused to offer advice to homosexual couples to help them perform sex acts on each other, which is against his personal convictions;
* No cases had been assigned to him, Relate fired him because of what he said he was uncomfortable doing;
* Relate was asking an established employee to act in a manner which would have made him personally uncomfortable and would have resulted in less than exemplairary service to their clients;
* McFarlane did not refuse to see other clients, only those with whom he was uncomfortable.

Since then, bloggists and "journalists" have said:
* "who lost his job with Relate because his homophobia – er, religious convictions – came into conflict with his duties. "
* Christian convictions do not equal homophobia. Christian convictions include trying to follow the precepts of Christianity, which direct followers to not judge or condemn, but to not lead others into what is considered wrong. McFarlane was not attacking homosexuals (as many have attacked him since), he was refusing to go against his convictions by guiding others into what he considered wrong

* "They are seeking to place Christian dogma over the rights of people to fair treatment. They must not succeed."

Why would Relate want to force a counselor to work with clients he could not give his best efforts to? As I understand their program they are not strictly a gay marriage service. Why wouldn't they assign gay couples to a therapist who was most qualified - in skills, experience, and attitude - to serve their needs? Why force a competent therapist to address cases outside his expertise? Just point him to the majority of their clients - straight couples - and let all the other counselors take turns serving the few gay couples.

There was no need to fire a qualified therapist, just use him to his best ability.

Because of my father's destruction by alcoholism, I am not well qualified to serve alcoholics. I don't hate them or wish them ill, I am just not the best counselor for them. When alcoholics ask for my help, I refer them to other counselors who are more able to serve their needs. Period. I hope I will not be fired for refusing to serve someone I could not offer top rate service to.

Convictions are convictions. They alter our ability to deal at peak with some. Just move on.

The largest temporary restroom event ...

B. Hussein Obama's inauguration will set records all over the place, including, as one supplier called it, "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States." How poignant.

Although markets are down and people are suffering all over the world, the soon to be sworn in president is quoting another famous American, saying about the exorbitant cost for his big party, "What, me worry?" Never mind that he is on the record as tactlessly bemoaning the financial mess he has sworn to fix, President Hussein ... Obama is kicking off his historic reign by running up the bills already.

Are these the same people who went nuts over Sarah Palin's expensive dresses? (Which, by the way, were only borrowed, and were returned after the campaigning.)

And his biggest critic for this obscene show of hubris? Well it's certainly not the American media, the "watchdogs of Democracy." They seem to almost wet themselves at the excitement of how much taxpayer money their crown prince is spending. Forget about the fact that four and eight years ago these same goofs were nagging President Bush to keep costs down out of respect for the many poor in the world. Forget about it ... they sure have!

But then what else can you expect from a sold-out media that refuses to take an honest look at their new Top Model, American Idol, superstar? These people haven't managed to notice the blatant hypocrisy of their super model and his phalanx of groupies. Not one major news source (except Fox - sorry, but it's true) is carrying a story criticizing this group who consistently attacked the Bush administration for ecologically damaging excess - for setting a record for the most PRIVATE JETS to enter DC airspace at once, nor the record number of FUR COATS worn by the politically correct tribe.

GACK! What blind fools they are!

Argue with me ... I dare you!

RO

Ignorant Media Wrong AGAIN!

another nail in the coffin lid of the media's believability: (or how stupid are these people, anyway?)

Reporting in the hostilities between Hamas terrorists in Gaza and the Israeli defense force actions:
CBS Evening news (USA) takes great delight (apparently) in showing a Palestinian father grieving over his wounded little boy, kissing the boy gently on the face, and scenes of frightened citizens running down the streets. A voiced over "Palestinian" news announcer whines that things are getting much more difficult for the families who live in the Gaza Strip since basic services such as electricity and water have been disrupted.

As far as CBS and the rest of the ignorant, mis-informed major media are concerned, the Hamas terrorists are just poor innocent victims of them there mean old Israelis who are trying to make their sweet lives miserable.

Stoopid CBS, you should have looked behind the shooting to see what made the Israelites begin their defensive assault on the terrorists who had been killing Israeli children and innocent citizens over the last three years. (But that would require actual investigation, which is too complicated for journalists, so don't bother your flaccid little minds.)

Oh well, no one believes anything the mainline media stooges say anymore, anyhow.

Waterford tanking

Up to 800 jobs at Waterford Crystal are under threat after the company confirmed it had gone into receivership.
Almost a trademark of Ireland, Waterford Crystal is a vital part of the landscape. Will the government step in to help?
Possibly not. An Associated Press story said, in part:

"Waterford Wedgwood PLC, the maker of classic china and crystal, filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday after attempts to restructure the struggling business or find a buyer failed.

Four administrators from business advisory firm Deloitte were appointed to run the company's businesses in Britain and Northern Ireland, while a Deloitte partner in the Irish Republic was appointed as receiver of Waterford Wedgwood PLC, the ultimate parent of the U.K. companies, and other Irish subsidiaries.

The U.K. joint administrators said they intended to continue to run the business as they seek a buyer. Trading in the company's shares was suspended on the Irish Stock Exchange where they languished at just one-tenth of a euro cent and the company's directors — including Anthony O'Reilly, the Irish publishing magnate who along with his brother-in-law Peter Goulandris owns more than half of all Waterford Wedgwood shares — handed in their resignations.

"Waterford, Wedgwood and Royal Doulton are quintessentially classic brands that represent a high quality product which is steeped in history," the administrators said in a statement.

Of course, this is not the first time Waterford has fallen through the ice. After originally opening in 1783, the company crashed in 1851 and was brought back to life one hundred years later.

At 1/10 a cent stock price, now might be the time to buy at least a bit of history if not a stake in the future.