Friday, September 11, 2009

A life which saved is lost

Today is, of course, the anniversay of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On that day, just under 3000 people lost their lives in the Twin Towers. And among those 3000 or so were 343 NYC Firefighters. They were men who saved lives, and in attempting to do so that day they died. It is sad and depressing.

I like firefighters. I spent a while yesterday talking with a New York (not city, but upstate) firefighter about the faith. He is a good, solid champion of the faith - as well as being a brave man in uniform. I also enjoy watching the old Jack Webb TV show Emergency! with Randolph Mantooth as Johnny Gage. I am trying to decide which name (Randolph Mantooth or Johnny Gage) is more awesome. And I enjoyed a recent episode where Mark Harmon (Gibbs in NCIS) played an animal rescue cop who rescued a goat! Tell me that isn't fantastic.

But, to return to something more serious (I try levity, but it's hard) - on 9/11 men and women lost their lives because they were trying to save others from murderers. That is horrible and unfortunate, but it is the way of the world. A firefighter or a cop or a soldier knows when he or she puts on that uniform, he or she is stepping into a world where people are gonna shoot at you or buildings might fall on your head. That is brave and that is good, and I salute you all for it.

Nurses and doctors put on a uniform too. And they go to work to try to save lives. But they don't expect to get shot at. And, most of the time, they don't.

People who defend the lives of the unborn by being pro-life might not wear a uniform, but they carry banners and they stand out from the general crowd. And they try to save lives. And they don't expect to get shot either.

Today, one of them did. Citizens For A Pro-Life Society has a press release about it. Jim Pouillon was shot and killed today. A lot of people are claiming it was because he was pro-life and protecting the unborn, but I haven't seen any firm evidence of that. Still, he was a pro-lifer shot down while he was protecting life.

I guess you are just as dead either way.

So, Jim Pouillon. Shot by someone today - possibly as an anti-pro-life action, possibly just for meanness and cruelty, maybe they wanted to rob him or whatever. In any case, the world is colder for his passing. He fought to protect lives from murderers. He was a hero.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Significant Date

A significant date, which has passed us by almost without being noticed! Just goes to show; we are sometimes too busy working to stop and smell the roses.

So, what is today? Well, obviously, it is the first of September. And that marks a significant anniversary. It is (speaking personally) my three-year anniversary of living in the United States. But my personal views are not relevant (I only wish personal views were relevant to some politicians who are personally opposed to abortion!)

No, today is more significant because it is the one-year anniversary of the first videos on! Well, perhaps yesterday was the first anniversary - because we uploaded the videos early so people on early September 1st would have something to look at! Anyway, September 1st was the official launch day!

And, by an amazing co-incidence, we passed the arbitrary milestone of one thousand videos posted to the site today as well! Yes, one thousand videos! That, to my mind, is absolutely amazing - an average of nearly two and three-quarter videos a day, and all on a shoe-string budget.

So, raise a glass to - and, if you can, why not send us a birthday present? Make a donation to us today, or - if you haven't subscribed already - why not subscribe? It's only $10 a month, and you get access to wonderful, exclusive, premium programming with new programs being added every week.

We need cake. I call for cake. And some candles.

Monday, August 31, 2009

For Too Long You Have Interfered With Our Country, American!

There are sometimes when no foolish or silly pop-culture joke seems enough, or even warranted, or wanted, or appropriate.

Fortunately, this is not one of those times! Hey, as I always say - if you can't laugh .... you probably aren't very happy.

I am not very happy right now, but I feel laughter of the hysterical "This is a joke, righ? Right? Right? Please for the love of little green apples, tell me this is a joke!" school is called for.

Obama's website calls us "terrorists". No seriously, I mean that. It really does.

I was informed of this by a friend of mine whose name I shall not give out - because those of us in the terror business like to go by code names, you see. So, in honor and homage to a recent blockbuster movie, I shall refer to her only as The Baroness.

Now, the website linked above (and now, linked here) has quotations and screen captures from Barack Obama's website. When his website is visited, the content is not the same. This could be down to the content having been changed from the rhetoric which called those opposed to Obamacare "the heirs of Bin Laden" and contained references to "superhero karate chops" (no, seriously, I am not making this stuff up) or it could have been because Gateway Pundit doctored the screengrabs for sensationalism points.

In any case the actual, current content of the website is not much better. Unless Obama and his Obamaites have changed their website again, this webpage right here beyond the click refers to those opposed to Obamacare as "domestic terrorists" and likens supporting the healthcare plan to fighting back against the 9/11 attacks.

Alright, gloves off you little piece of slime. Gloves off.

We campaign to stop a healthcare plan which includes abortions, and you liken us to terrorists? You mention that 3000 died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but neglect to mention more than that die every single day from abortion? You call me a terrorist?

This is simply flatly insulting to those who have died in terrorist attacks. I have buried more friends than I care to mention because of brutal, barbaric attacks from the IRA (I am from England, in case people were unaware of that). I know what terrorism is - you have no idea, you jumped-up, grinning snake-oil salesman.

As a matter of interest, it is interesting to note that Ted Kennedy of unhappy memory supported both abortion and the goals of the IRA. So, that's several people I care about you supported the slaughter of, Senator. As I said earlier, I really hope you begged for forgiveness from God before you died.

But this is what we face - we face an enemy who calls those making peaceful demonstrations "terrorists", who accuses those expressing their democratic rights of subverting democracy, and likens those who try to defend the lives of the unborn to those who slaughter thousands.

This is the enemy we face. Never let any of their lies fool you - they are not for a woman's choice, or the rights of mothers, or "personally opposed" or any of that garbage. They are straight up, flat-out, monsters. I am incensed, and have possibly lost my temper.

Obama calls me a terrorist? No, Mister President - you don't need to be terrified of me. You need to be terrified of God - because He will have something to say to you concerning your lies and support of genocide.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

We have to make some kind of comment

Sen. Edward ("Ted") Kennedy (D-MA) is dead. He died last night from brain cancer.

Ooookay - where do we begin?

Or, rather, where do we not begin? Because I have seen many people (some of them my friends) begin in completely the wrong way;

"Well, I don't agree with everything that he did or stood for, but he did some wonderful things for his State, and he was always positive towards the military, and he supported a lot of good causes. And his family has had such tragedy."

That begins at the wrong place.

So, to be fair, does the other sort of obituary;

"Sen. Kennedy burns in Hell! Hahahahahaha!"

Neither of these begin, or end, at the right place. And they tend to go off a bit in the middle as well.

So, how should I begin?

Firstly, it is a simple fact that Sen. Kennedy spent most of his professional career in a state of unrepentant mortal sin. His support for abortion, the homosexual agenda and a whole host of other issues make that clear. There is no case to be made that he might have supported these things and then confessed his sins so he was, actually, alright with God. His constant support of these matters show that, even if he did confesses his support for abortion (which is highly unlikely) his confession lacked the required contrition. If he asked for forgiveness, it was clear he was not asking for it with genuine contrition (if you are sorry, why do you never say so publicly, Senator?)

Secondly, it is a simple fact that if he died in this state of unrepentant mortal sin, tonight his soul basks in Hell. That is something my Church teaches me. It is something simple logic teaches me. This is justice - those who die shaking their fists at God will burn forever. Kennedy lived shaking his fist at God.

Thirdly, it is not certain Kennedy died in a state of unrepentant mortal sin. He might have sought forgiveness (with the correct sort of contrition) before he died. I hope and I pray he did. Frankly, I find it very unlikely - he never said he was sorry during his life, so why would he say so at the very end? But, we can hope and pray for him - and I urge you to do so.

Fourthly, and most importantly ....

(this is so important it gets its own paragraph)

.... there is no way we can say "Well, I might not have agreed with everything he did, but ..." or, as a friend of mine said, "I don't think he can be reduced to a couple of issues [abortion and the gay agenda]".

Really? Really? You know what, here is my rebuttal;

Hitler made the trains run on time.

There is no defence for what Kennedy did. Lest we have all forgotten, he conspired with heretical Jesuits in the 1960s to come up with a method of supporting abortion while seeming to stay aligned with Catholic teaching (this was, in fact, the method which eventually became "Personally Opposed But ....") Lest we forget, he consistently supported pro-abortion laws. He wrote the health-care plan which includes tax-payer funding for abortions. He left a woman to drown in the back of his car because he didn't want a DUI!

He never said sorry for any of these things. He never retracted them, or said they were wrong. In the case of the drowning in the back of his Oldsmobile, he explained his running away and hiding for the time it would take him to sober up as an unaccountable lapse. We often forget his victim was alive in the back of the car and, had he gone to the police earlier, she would have been saved.

Kennedy was an architect of the culture of death. He was one of the most significant supporters of it. It is possible he may have repented and received forgiveness - and I hope he did. I truly pray for this, because I don't want to see anyone in Hell.

But we cannot ever say something as idiotic as "Well, I might not have agreed with everything he stood for, but he was a good man ...." You can say that sort of this about a guy who has an economic policy you don't agree with, but whose foreign policy is good. You can say that about a man who argues for nationalization but was a staunch defender of human rights.

What in the name of God can you put against the calculated rejection of sacred oaths and the deliberate murder of over 50 million innocent children in their mothers' wombs? What in the universe is equivalent to that?

And, seriously, just what DID Ted Kennedy do that was so good? Anyone? I can't think of a single thing he did which was really worthy of praise. He lied and cheated to support himself and his dynasty and his causes - and his "causes" were ones which are utterly opposed to western civilization, right-thinking human beings and the Catholic Church. He supported abortion - the main cause of the utter decline and destruction of everything we hold dear. He supported the slaughter of the next generation!

And now he is dead. And I will not mourn his passing. I hope and I pray he repented - oh, God, please, don't let him have died denying Your truth! Please! But the fact of the matter remains that he was a great champion of the enemy army, and he is no longer fighting for them and their dreadful agenda. I can only hope that whoever takes his place in the Senate is less effective or less monstrous.

Because the fight against people like Sen. Kennedy is not over with his death. Because all those whose concern has been the murder of babies; their work goes on, their cause endures, the horror still lives, and the nightmare will not die easily.

I pray you rest in peace, Sen. Kennedy - I just don't think it likely.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Take Care, Agent DiNozzo . . .

It is not news to anyone that I am a fan of N.C.I.S. Nor is it a great reveal that my favorite character is Special Agent Tony DiNozzo, the Italian-American ex-Baltimore homicide 'tec who is Senior Field Agent on the Major Crimes Squad. He is played by Michael Weatherly, and is pretty awesome.

Why is this relevant? It's not - but N.C.I.S. returns to our screens in September! And I have been in communication with an Italian-American gentleman today and I want to talk about him, but not use his real name. So, in honor of Agent DiNozz0, I am going to call him "Tony".

Tony wrote to us here at with some information about why Barack Obama is a bad man. This is, if you will forgive the analogy, like Agent DiNozzo giving Agent Gibbs tips on sniping.

Okay - no more N.C.I.S. inside-jokes. I promise.

Anyway, in this email exhange he maintained Obama was a Muslim etc. etc. I called him on this, and pointed out it is not okay to tell lies about someone even if they are a baby-killing freak! Seriously, people.

The conversation continued - and ultimately got into the realm where I asked him what his views on contraception were because he had complained the Catholic Church did not do enough to stop abortion. I pointed out we support ALL aspects of the culture of life, not MERELY the obvious and easy ones.

Basically, it came down to this - Tony supports contraception. In case you (and Tony) didn't know, contraception causes abortions. Yes, that is right - the Pill kills babies. It works in a number of ways to prevent "conception" - and one of those ways is to actually kill the fetus after conception but before anyone notices it.

Hint, Tony - killing someone and having no-one notice is still murder. You should have learned this in Baltimore!

I pointed this out to him, telling him that his fight against the culture of death was laudible, but that his approach was wrong.

Firstly, it is inconsistent. Assuming he is in a marriage and his having sex at the usual rate for Americans and his wife is on the Pill .... he is abortion 1.8 children a year. He is killing nearly 37 of his children over a 25 year marriage on the Pill (allowing for the normal length of time off the Pill to have three children). That is pretty scary - and makes a mockery of his rejection of abortion. That would be like Agent DiNozzo saying "I will investigate the murder of Navy personel, but not Marines. Because Marines don't count." It simply renders what you are doing ludicrous - you condemn abortion performed with a scalpel and suction device, but not chemicals? Whiskey-Tango-Delta? (What The Deuce?)

Secondly, it is self-defeating. Tony's view was that we can do pretty much anything provided it beats Obama! So, we can lie, slander, spread falsehoods, exagerate, supress the truth, whatever we please and we get a pass on this because we are doing it for the greater good!

This is "the ends justify the means". It is a faulty moral principle. Closer to the truth would be "the means justify the ends". That is; if you fight a good and fair and honest fight it does not matter if you lose.

This is not something Tony seems to get (or Agent DiNozzi, who killed a Mossad agent while said Israeli was drunk . . .) Why are we fighting Barack Obama?

We are not fighting him to "preserve the American way of life". We are not fighting him to protect our taxes. We are not fighting him to defend our rights under any Amendment to the Constitution.

As Catholics, we fight him because he is opposed to the Church and if we do not fight the enemies of the Church we go to Hell! "Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" as Saint Paul said.

Our goal here is the salvation of souls - starting with ours! We do not get a pass on doing the right thing simply because our end goal is laudible.

He who fights with monsters must take care, lest he becomes a monster.

Aw, heck - let me be totally honest here; people - if you oppose abortion but support contraception you are a hypocrite, an idiot and are most likely going to Hell. If you think it is okay to lie and cheat to achieve a good end you were asleep during morality class, and are risking going to Hell.

Seriously, people - stand up and fight fair! Fight clean and nobly and decently! And fight the whole fight! Contraception does not just LEAD to abortion - IT IS ABORTION!

Think on that, Tony.

Monday, August 3, 2009

I don't want to make a blonde joke . . .

. . . and so I won't. But, seriously Debbie; is this your war-face?

"We've Lost"?

The US Census Bureau starts counting gay marriage as "married" on the census and we've "lost"? How does this work?

You know what, Debbie - I want to play chess with you. We can do it for money. I'm sure I could capture at least one of your pawns and, based on this evidence, you would consider the game "lost", regardless of what other victories you might have achieved!

We've lost because the US Census Bureau decides to recognise unions defined in law as marriage as marriage? How is this the complete loss your headline implies it is? Certainly, it is a disappointing (although unsurprising) setback. The fact so-called gay "marriage" is allowed and legally recognized at all is a problem and a bad thing, but it's not a "loss". At best, it is a minor kink in our plans.

So, what is my motivation in posting this? Well, it is multiple - and is partially informed by a discussion I had with a YouTuber today. So, allow me to summarize my views;

i) I am reporting this news which is (according to Debbie's article) not very widely publicised so you know about it. It is of particular interest because it is another example of the Federal Government not doing what Barack Obama said he would do; a branch of the Federal Government is now giving legal recognition to gay "marriage" while Barack Obama said he would not (he wanted "civil unions"). This is a minor issue, a minor difference between his views and Federal policy (and it is not clear if the census bureau really comes under his direct control, or if he had any input into this at all) but it might be worth watching. Now you know and, remember, knowing is half the battle.

ii) And that is a great segue to the next point; Debbie Schlussel's comments concerning words recently said by the director of G.I. Joe (remember? We were always told "knowing was half the battle" at the end of the G.I.Joe cartoons?

Okay, Debbie says that the director of G.I.Joe calls Vietnam vets "steroid users" and "disses" them. She says this in the headline, and also in the body of the article. She also quotes the director himself, which may have been a mistake.

See, I would have believed you, Debbie, were it not for the pernicious facts of the case which point out you are a liar. The director says no such thing. Here are his words;

"Right from the writing stage we said to ourselves, this can’t be about beefy guys on steroids who all met each other in the Vietnam War, but an elite organization that’s made up of the best of the best from around the world."

At no point does the director say people who served in Vietnam are steroid abusers, nor does he "dis" these loyal warriors (some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice, and all of whom suffered greatly). What he says is that his movie is not an exclusively American piece of work; it is a movie which focuses on an elite international force. He makes the statement the heroes are not steroid-using Vietnam veterans. This is a very specific denial - he could have said the movie is also not about tap-dancing elephants who form a string-quartet. However, I suppose it is an important point to make - many movies have been about warriors who met during Vietnam and who certainly look like they might have abused steroids. The director is saying this movie is not the typical, gung-ho, brainless action movie which is totally American. It is a more international brainless action movie, I guess.

In any case, at no point does the director say anything about Vietnam veterans as a group. The phrase "all Vietnam veterans are drug abusers and are not elite or the best" is missing from his statement.

It is a logical jump, Debbie, to claim he does. It is a logical jump which weakens our position.

Why am I pointing this out? I am pointing this out for many reasons - one of which is related to YouTube. We post some of our videos on YouTube and this one attracts a lot of attention. It points out that Barack Obama is anti-Catholic. Many commentators on this video have pointed out (incorrectly) that because we are opposed to Obama and say that he is anti-Catholic, we must be saying we love Republicans, agree with everything they stand for, and think they are the poster-children for Catholicism.

This is a failure in logic - just as thinking a man which points out his movie is not about drug-abusing Vietnam vets hates America.

Why am I pointing this out? Because it is a problem we can all - conservative and liberal - fall into. We must be careful we do not make logical jumps, state things which aren't true, or say things which do not necessarily follow. Republicans are very far from being perfect - they are not poster-children for Catholicism, and there are several things on the Republican platform which are anti-Catholic. This does not, however, mean the Democratic platform is not anti-Catholic.

The director of G.I.Joe has created a movie which Debbie slams before it is released - because she is the kind of person, I guess, who just wants to slam stuff. Perhaps she is right - perhaps he is violently anti-American and really does think Vietnam vets all did steroids. Perhaps he hates his country.

But, Debbie, if this is the case, we need some evidence. Can we at least do that?

Thursday, July 30, 2009

I Have Seen The Enemy . . . .

. . . and it is us!

No, this is not a case of Nietzschean abyss-gazing, nor indeed Confucian navel-gazing, nor indeed some kind of Captain Birdseye naval gazing (did you know Captain Birdseye was, in fact, a real captain? No? You learn something new every day.)

And what we learn today is that states with a higher proportion of Catholics tend to favor gay "rights".

Just as an aside, I - as a committed and fully-paid up Catholic male in full communion with the old German dude in the wicked hat in Italy - wish to state I fully support equal rights for homosexual men and women with regard to marriage. I believe gay men should have the same marriage rights as heterosexual men, and lesbians as heterosexual women. Yes, indeedie! I believe gay men should be allowed to marry women, just like heterosexual men are. And lesbian women should be allowed to marry men, just like heterosexual women can.

I mean, surely that is equal rights, right?

Ooooo, I think that's enough acerbic sarcasm for today. My doctor told me I have to avoid it.

In any case, this latest poll. Or study. Or whatever. Yes, indeed - it seems as if the states where there are the highest percentage of Catholics support so-called "gay marriage". The study does not report on whether or not they support square circles, liquid solids, or perpetual motion machines.

So, what do we make of this?

Well, firstly and most obviously; let's consider the (standard) methodology for determining who is "Catholic". If you say you are Catholic (as far as these studies are concerned) . . . you are Catholic. It doesn't matter if you never go to Mass or Confession, or if you believe anything the Church teaches or not - it is a totally self-defined label.

So, what does this study really tell us?

Our enemy is us, it is within. It is a cancer in the beating heart of the Church.

I know this is perhaps polemic, but this is true. Right now, a majority of Catholics voted for Barack Obama (who, it appears, can also self-label himself as "not-a-baby-killing-Communist" in much the same way). This is disturbing, given the fact Barry O is, in fact, a wee bit anti-Catholic and opposed to the teachings of the Church.

So, bottom line? The Catholics in the pew (or, perhaps, not in the pew but on the rolls) are, generally-speaking, wishy-washy and soft on the teachings of the Church.

Solution? Why - it is down to us! Good Catholics, strong Catholics, kick-posterior Catholics! Yes, we need to go to these people (it is very simple - you will find them all over the place, including at family reunions) and tell them they are wrong, why, and persuade them to think right!

Exciting, no?

And how do we do such a thing?

Why, we can start by subscribing to, the finest internet TV station there is, and registering for premium access. This gives you access to hours and hours and hours of excellent classes and information designed to turn you into a powerhouse of Catholic knowledge and persuasion!

Click here! Register! Subscribe! Watch! Learn! Fight!

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Mighty. Falling.

Listen carefully - do you hear that noise? Three heavy, basso-profundo thumps followed by a disconcerting whirring?

That is the sound of Catholic Charities USA, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and the Catholic Health Association dropping their morals like a live grenade, and Saint Vincent de Paul spinning in his grave.

Yes, it seems that the juggernaut of Obamacare marches forth, and three formerly-Catholic associations have not simply got out of the way, but have actually started pushing the carriage forward.

Or, at least, that is the way it looks. Because these organizations have joined in calling for health-care reform and are saying "We can't wait until the signing ceremony".

We'll, you are going to have to wait until after the August recess, it seems, but that is by-the-by.

Most (if not all) Catholics would agree there is always room for reform of health care. Health care could be improved - less bureaucracy, more bandages, less forms, more facilities. And so forth. And a Catholic organization calling for reform is not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is a Catholic organization calling for reform and supporting a proposed reform which encourages abortion, contraception, euthanasia and so forth.

The first of the moral principles is that one cannot do evil to achieve good. One cannot support a plan which will increase abortions even if it would help others.

Of course, we cannot assume the intent of these three organizations to be evil; it would be charitable to assume they have the best intentions .... which are, of course, used to pave the road to Hell. It is a fair-bet these organizations think the health-care plan as it stands is an acceptable compromise, that it will help some even as it harms others.

Unfortunately, that thinking is wrong and evil and false and altogether idiotic. And it needs to be opposed.

So, I report this too you via this blog post, and we await further developments - perhaps one or more of these organizations will change their stance.

We can but hope. And pray.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Back With The Ker-ay-zee News!

It is not just crazy right now, it is ker-ay-zee!

By following the above link, you will find an article about a Catholic nurse forced to help perform a late-term abortion. Now, doubtless you will all be saying, "Ah! So it begins! The violation of conscience clauses, the beginning of an official persecution against Catholics! She will never win the lawsuit and it will set a dangerous precedent!"

And, who knows, you might even be right.

But this is not what I am here to talk about. Of course, this does show a dangerous level of "we don't give two hoots about your religious beliefs; we want you to carve up babies!" prevalent in this fine nation of ours (note; the term "fine nation" is used mostly in a retrospective manner because, lest we forget, this "fine nation" currently allows the killing of babies legally, something previously only practiced by pre-Columbian cannibalistic empires, high levels of Classical Greek society who believed in a pantheon of gods closer to The Young and the Restless than the Bible, and overpopulated naked mole rat warrens.) The fact this nurse is forced into murder against her wishes under threat of losing her job and license and prosecution is worrying and shocking and a bad thing. But I am not here to talk about that.

President Barack Obama (who, under the advice of my lawyers, I do not describe as a baby-killing monster unable to go to the bathroom without a press corps and a teleprompter) is pushing a health care plan through Congress. Congress, if you remember from your civics lessons, is a bicameral house which seeks re-election. It is a slow, bloated monster and it produces law, which is kind of like sausage but harder to cook.

Anyway, health care legislation is winding its way through the bowels of government like something which winds its way through bowels. And this legislation includes a whole bunch of stuff which Catholics don't like (abortion, contraception, etc. etc.) But this case, if it gets enough coverage, could be a spanner in the works. The removal of the conscience protection clause is part of his overall health-care package, even if it does not make it into this round of health-care legislation.

This case could attract attention and give a human face to the problem of conscience protection, and show it up for what it is. This is not a matter of there being no-one else to perform this horrible "surgery" - there were other nurses, but a supervisor forbade any of them being called! So, this isn't about someone wanting to make sure someone has an abortion - this is about liberals howling "We will make sure Catholics get their ugly papist hands bloody! Hahahaha! We attack the Church! We will bury your Church!"

Yeah. Napoleon said that, you liberal fools. And look what happened to him. He's buried in France.

Friday, June 12, 2009

The Saga of George

As recently reported in this blog George Tiller was killed and there is a media bias about this.

Well, here is another article (an op-ed piece) which I think is really good. It addresses the issues surrounding the demonization of the pro-life movement because of the evil actions of a self-identified member of that movement.

What this article also does, however, is point out an essential truth which I had not considered - the mainstream media (who are annoying) were very quick to ensure no-one demonized an entire religion because of the actions of a few evil men (we are talking about Islam and 9/11, for anyone asleep at the back of class) but have been eager to demonize the pro-life movement.

Hypocritical, much?

Remember; the pro-life movement is a movement of peace!

See, it sounds much more plausible when your great religious text does not contain instructions to murder, child-abuse and so forth (warning; that link might be considered a bit polemic - it's not our video!)

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Media Bias

Not, perhaps, the most surprising post today - but, then again, if you had wanted to be surprised you would have rented Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus and found it stars little Debbie Gibson! Is my childhood music not sacred, Hollywood? Little Debbie Gibson in a movie about gigantic sea monsters?

Where was I? Oh, yeah - Media Bias.

Not bias towards badly-produced movies about gigantic cartilaginous fish and huge cepholapods , but rather bias towards the agenda of the Left. Yeah, I know - stop me if you've heard this before.

Oh, drat - everyone stopped me. Ah well, I shall carry on anyway.

Check out this article which makes my points in a manner less sarcastic (and with less sea-monsters) than I would, but which is a little more thoroughly researched than I can be bothered with. Seriously, good article.

Okay, not new news at all. But it illustrates the same point I have made before (on this blog and others) - the media has a strong left-wing bias. The death of George Tiller was murder, plain and simple. It is completely and totally wrong.

But so is the murder of American soldiers on American soil by a man who may have been (according to some reports) a Muslim convert and terrorist sympathizer. George Tiller may have been innocent in the eyes of the law (even though he was not in the eyes of God) but so were the people hurt in the other attack.

And the coverage of these two events should be similar - they should generate the same number of column inches.

Guess what? They don't. I think Debbie Gibson and her excessively large calamari gets more coverage (yes, I know calamari is made of squid and squids are not octopuses - it is called dramatic license).

So, that is just one of the many examples of media bias. There are, of course, a number of solutions to this - one is to hide in a cave like some kind of hermit and be exposed to none of it. This is not recommended.

The other solution is to subscribe to and get the other side of the story there! - a better use of video than giant octopuses and far superior to living in a cave.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

George Tiller Killed

Most of you will have seen the news that late-term abortionist George Tiller has been shot and killed.

The only correct response for a pro-life Christian is to pray for his soul, and I hope that we all would immediately do so. There certainly should be no statements such as "he had it coming" or "well, it's what he deserves". Obviously, no authentic Catholic would hold such views - but others may do. Please be prepared to rebuke fellow Christians who express them! We should pray for his soul, because he will certainly need it!

However, the main reason I am writing about this today is because of President Barack "Ooo, is that a place where I can advance my agenda? Gangway!" Obama's statement.

At time of writing, there is no evidence the shooter had any connection with the pro-life movement (or even claimed connection with the pro-life movement - the pro-life movement decries all murder, even that of abortionists!) Evidence is being looked for and - speaking candidly - it is likely the shooter was motivated by anti-abortion sentiment (although not pro-life sentiment).

However, there is no evidence at this stage - and saying or implying "George Tiller was shot by an anti-abortionist" is wrong and unfair. We should wait for a clear answer before making any comment.

Unless, of course, we are some sort of looney pro-abort, socialist politician seeking to make a fast buck. To quote our illustrious (or is that "ill-us and try-us"?) leader;

However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Excuse me, Mister President? I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you right. Could you perhaps repeat that for this stupid pro-life Catholic your administration has defined as a potential terrorist?

However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Yeah, that is what I thought you said. You total imbecile.

Point the first; we don't know this man was motivated by any issue connected with abortion. Sure, he might have been, but we don't know. And where I come from, we deal in facts, Mister President. Not speculation in order to advance a baby-killing agenda. Facts. I have, personally, crushed rumors you are a Muslim, Mister President - mostly because there was no evidence you were, not because there was evidence you were not. I did not speculate and spread rumors because that ain't nice, you fool!

Point the second; you mention "abortion" and "heinous acts of violence" in the same sentence, and imply they should not be connected? Is that some kind of attempt at being funny? I liked your self-depreciating quip about the Greek columns, and also your mockery of Joe Biden more, Mister President. You are suggesting that abortion should never be resolved by violence?

What else do you CALL an abortion if not an act of violence, Barry O? Seriously, dude - you do know what abortion entails, right? Hey, why don't you register for a premium account on and watch The Cost of Abortion which contains a lot of footage of actual abortions? For about a millionth of the price of your socialist bailout, you could learn something! What a concept!


What was done to George Tiller was wrong. It was an act of violence. The fact he himself bestowed violence on thousands of human beings does not make it right. But your idiocy, Mister President, in decrying violence surrounding the issue of abortion is simply hypocritical.

It's kind of like cutting $100million of "pork" from the budget and then increasing spending by . . . . oh, wait.


Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Another article

I have read a few articles today, one of which I posted here earlier.

And here is another one - concentrating on so-called "gay marriage" in Mass-uh-chew-sits.

I found it very interesting and insightful - not a huge amount there I couldn't have guessed, but it is good to see the figures to back up my precognition.

Interesting article

Although not directly related to abortion and the pro-life movement, this article is interesting and I thought it should be shared with all.

It discusses the trend towards single-motherhood in the USA, and some of the reasons behind it. What is most interesting is the discussion of how this is bad for children, and also how single motherhood (in many ways stemming from feminist principles) is, in fact, hurting women just as much if not more as any cruel patriarchal oppression found in a "barefoot and pregnant" marriage situation.

So, read this article. It is not, directly, about abortion - but it speaks to many of the same issues which abortion stems from.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Yay Ned!

In a recent post, I wrote that the Archdiocese of Detroit had not effectively communicated the stance of their leader, Abp. Vigneron, on the Obama @ ND scandal. I pointed out the only reference to this I could find was in a buried press release on the AoD website. I bemoaned this state of affairs, saying the Communications Director hadn't sufficiently conveyed the (excellent) stance of the Archdiocese.

Well, it appears I must now withdraw any such criticism, because Ned McGrath has now not only communicated Abp. Vigneron's stance clearly to the local newspaper, but has also made a statement of his own (or, perhaps more accurately, said a statement himself in his capacity as Communications Director).

Here is the article and it is good.

Also referenced in the article are Michael Voris and Diane K., so we have three Metro-Detroit Catholics speaking up here, together with Abp. Vigneron (whose voice is not heard directly, but whose opposition is made clear).

This is an excellent thing, and I salute everyone for this clear stance. Seriously, check out Ned's words - those are pretty harsh and very clear. He mocks the words of Obama asking for a fair-minded debate by pointing out Obama's policies have slaughtered the opposition before the debate even began! That is a good tack and a good line, Ned - I applaud it unreservedly. will be covering the Notre Dame protests and other events over the next few days (we had a cameraman down there doing the cameraman thing, together with Mike doing some on-camera work) so watch this space! Or, rather, watch this space.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Crossing the terminator into day . . .

A poetic title. Who can tell me where it comes from?

In any case, it is apropos. My wife found the following article;

This is a link. Click it, grasshopper, and you will be ENLIGHTENED.

For those of you with an aversion to clicking links, allow me to bottom-line it for you. There is a significant shift towards a pro-life stance by Americans. There are more people self-identifying as pro-life than pro-choice now, the first time such a thing has been since these questions were first asked.

Of course, a question must be asked - what does "pro-life" mean to the majority of people? Does it mean (as it should) "no abortions, no embryonic stem-cell research and no contraception"? No, it does not - this is a cafeteria style pro-life identifier. Still, this is a significant step - these are people who are saying, on balance, they support the life of a child more than they support the choice of a mother.

A good development, I think.

Associated polls (also available at the link above) suggest even more positive news; the number of people thinking abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances is high - it is a figure which like the giant beanstalk in the eponymous tale of Jack has grown since we last looked. It appears we are exchanging sacred cows for some kind of useful magic bean.

That sentence really doesn't mean anything, it just sounds good.

So, all in all, a surprising poll result and one which I find encouraging. Is it the be-all and end-all of the situation? It is not - but this is how it begins. To belabour the metaphor (in fact, to drag it kicking and screaming and practically beat it to death) we have sold our sacred cow and bought magic beans. Now we need to climb the beanstalk and kill the giant who wants to grind our bones to make his bread.

Hey, this isn't actually a bad metaphor, now I look at it. Hi-ho-hi-ho, it's off to work I go . . .

More from the icon of Americana

As we reported (a fancy term when it just means I slammed something out in Blogger, really) a while ago, a Bishop with a supremely American name made a wonderful statement about Obama at ND and the various issues surrounding honoring a "homicidal" (his words, not mine - but only because he got there first) man who supports abortion at a soi dissant Catholic university.

Long link there, I know.

Anyway, some Liberal chap called Dionne wrote an op-ed piece at the Washington Post which was picked by the Sioux City Journal. This article basically said (and, please, read it rather than trusting my assessment, I don't mind) "Ha! In your face, Conservatives! The Pope likes Obama because L'Osservatore Romano says Obama is a-okay!"

Ooooo-kay. Where to begin?

Well, I would begin - but I am called Simon Rafe, which is perhaps about an un-American name as one can get and still be allowed in this fine country (p.s. it is pronounced Ray-f not Ra-fey and it is Old English, not Middle Eastern). Hence, my comments lack the "mom, flag and apple pie" quality I desire to provide here.

Enter like a red-white-and-blue bolt of lightning Bishop R. Walter Nickless of Sioux City!

Yes, Bishop Nickless writes a rebuttal to this poorly researched article where he makes it very clear the words of L'Osservatore Romano are NOT official Church teaching (any more than the op-ed pieces of the Washington Post of NY Times are official policies of the White House - although they usually are . . .) and cannot be treated as such.

An important article I think we should all read, as the matter of L'Osservatore's foolish article is not going to go away. We all need to know how to respond to this.

And for further information on how to better respond to questions about the faith, make sure you check out, where you can get daily news and commentary PACKED with Catholic information!

Internet Archaeology

Did you know the media - even some of the Catholic media - just can't be bothered?

There are some things I can't be bothered with - like, I can't be bothered to make coffee when I don't want any and everyone else does, but they all seem to be just bad at making coffee. Seriously, guys - lukewarm water poured over wet grounds from yesterday doesn't make coffee. It makes . . . I dunno what it makes, but it sure as sunrise ain't coffee.

Ladies and gentlemen, my co-workers. Loyal and faithful, can't make coffee for toffee.

BUT when it comes to reporting important news, we are TOTALLY down with that. Hence and it's FREE daily newscast! Get news! Every day! Catholic News! FREE! Some of my favorite words there (other favorite words are "chortle" and "defenestrate").

According to Diane K of the Te Deum Blog, Archbishop Alan Vigneron of Detroit (that is, our local Ordinary here in the D) made a statement concerning the Obama @ ND scandal. This statement has not (at time of press) been made very clear or open - certainly, I hadn't heard of it, nor had Given the fact we are the people who break stories which happen on the other side of this country this seems to show the piece was buried.

And buried it was. Diane has put on her Indiana Jones hat and gone digging, however! (I would say she put on her Lara Croft shorts, but I know Diane - she has some sense of self-respect and would not dress as Her Grace Duchess Croft "dresses". Actually, if I recall correctly, Diane does own a hat not entirely unlike that of Indiana Jones!)

Anyway, internet archaeology by Diane K!

HERE IS THE LINK, long hidden from the eyes of man and now brought to light by Diane!

So, it seems that Abp. Vigneron HAS made a statement, but the statement is not clear and obvious. The director of communications for the AoD is one Ned McGrath (identified as such on the page linked to above).

Come on, Ned - people have been questioning Abp. Vigneron's stance on this issue because we all thought he was silent! He DID say something! You should have made it clearer - if we missed this press release, you could have made it more obvious!

So, hats off to Abp. Vigneron! Good man, making a clear statement on this matter AND writing to Fr. Jenkins in MARCH! But why didn't I know about this beforehand? It is a great shame people have not recognised Abp. Vigneron's principled stance for what it is (a good thing!) because we simply didn't know about it.

Thanks Diane K for her archaeology! Dum-de-dum-dum, dum-de-dum! Dum-de-dum-dum, dum-de-dum-diddle-de-dum!

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

We're back . . .

. . . but with nothing, alas, new.

Or nothing you haven't been subjected to before.

Sorry we've been away for a while. One would like to say it was because April was a quiet month for people killing babies. Alas, that was not the case. We were just very busy at with various events and conferences. We went to Chicago, home of Barack "Baby Killer" Obama. We didn't go to see him, of course, but rather to videotape the Institute of Religious Life's annual conference. Great fun! Make sure you subscribe to to watch the hours and hours of video we shot there, loads of great talks!

Okay, where are we with news you have been subjected to before?

Well, it's a soi dissant Catholic claiming to be "personally opposed" but, in fact, supporting abortion. This is hardly surprising - perhaps I should just write a computer program to create these blog entries for me? Just plug in the name of the pro-choice Catholic, add a few sarcastic jokes, randomly italicise one or two words in the piece, put in a few links to articles and we are done!

Hmm - I think that would remove the human element. Which is precisely what Kathleen Sebelius wants to do.

(Effortless segue there, you can thank me later.)

Okay, the news that Kathleen Sebelius is a lying little weasel who tells huge great big whopping fibs about her sources of income is hardly new news. In case you have been living in a case (or hermetically sealed bubble to avoid the swine 'flu) let me bring you briefly up to speed.

Kathleen Sebelius is a lying little weasel who tells huge great big whopping fibs about her sources of income.

Erm, that's about it. She lied about how much money she got from abortionist George "Tiller the Killer" Tiller. She lied to the Senate by a factor of about three.

(On another note, I just love the way practically everyone whom Barack Obama nominates to a position has some sort of financial irregularity in their past or present. This is awesome. I think this shows a real dedication to . . . . something. The old fashioned principles of Chicago, perhaps? With apologies to anyone from Chicago who is not part of the Cook County Democratic Party (aka The Chicago Machine) or part of Al Capone's old bootlegger chums.)

(Oh, I feel a YouTube video coming on . . .)

(Note, I am NOT posting this video as anything other than a vaguely comedic interlude. I am certainly not advocating violence against anyone, especially not Sebelius, Obama or any other pro-choice politican. I condemn all forms of violence. I have to say that because of STUPID laws which trample over free-speech in this country.)

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, George "Tiller the Killer" Tiller gave money to Sebelius and she lied about it.

This is not really news - a politician lying? But, it is something I would want to discuss - if you are taking money from this chap, Kathleen, why hide it? Seriously - if you think abortion should be legal (as your party platform states, and you own voting record supports) why are you embarrassed about or hiding this payment? I mean, abortion is legal, right? It's not as if you are taking drug money or money from an old Nazi selling soap, right? This is legal and fair and part of your platform? Why hide it?

Answer - because you know it is wrong, and you know people will be shocked and horrified you are linked to a man who carries out late-term abortions. You know you are so far off the main stream you are out in the desert of wacky liberal looniness. Population: You and the rest of the people with financial irregularities.

(You know it was tax fraud that brought down Capone, right?)

Anyway, this is not news - and what I am about to reveal is nothing you haven't seen before. But, here is anyway.

In Fort Mill, SC (smalltown America at its best!) we find this newspaper with this article. I am giving coverage to them because I like small town America. I would link to a Rodney Atkins song, but I already have one odd YouTube clip here and two would be a bit much.

In this article, we find this GEM of a line from our old friend Kathleen;

"I am personally opposed to abortion, and my faith teaches me that all life is sacred," Sebelius, a Roman Catholic, said in written answers to Finance Committee questions.

That word again - personally opposed. Yes, I know this is two words - it's called artistic licence.

Can we guess that her record might not match her rhetoric? I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count.

The Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas suggested she was trying to make "death marches" to abortion clinics as legal as "the death-marches to the gas chambers of the World War II Holocaust". She wrote a law endorsed by groups such as Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women, which proposed no waiting period before an abortion or requirement that the parent of a minor seeking an abortion be notified first. Anti-abortion legislators maneuvered around her and settled for a law less stringent than they wanted to avoid her continued involvement.

So, this is the woman we have in place as Health and Human Services Secretary. This is the woman defending us against swine 'flu. A woman who lies to the Senate about how much money she receives. A woman who lies about her pro-life credentials. A woman who is, once again, a Catholic In Name Only.

How can we accept this woman in any postion with that sort of record? Even if we ignored her violent opposition to life and the idiot contradiction that implies in the role of Health Secretary, how can we trust someone who just flatly lies about what she believes and how much money she receives? She is a liar and her word is worth NOTHING.

I really have nothing else to say.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Bishop R Walker Nickless

In case people coming from here from the news missed the entry for Bishop Nickless below, here it is in its own post;

Click and read his letter.

For those of you coming here for the first time, welcome to Personally Opposed! Herein we talk about Catholic and pro-life news which particularly pertains to politicans who say they are personally opposed (P.O.ed) to abortion but who do nothing about it. You know the ones - people who say they want to reduce abortions, but who - oh, I don't know - recind the Mexico City policy.

Yeah, I'm looking at you, Barack Obama. It's not pleasant.

What a WEEK!

There has been a LOT going on - and so this post will be a long list of moral prononcements vaguely connected by some kind of narrative structure. So, in that sense, it's a lot like a Robert A. Heinlien novel.

(Aside - for those premium subscribers to, make sure you check out my review of Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers which went up yesterday! And if you aren't a premium subscriber, why not? It's only $10 a month, and it is very good indeed - hundreds of hours of programming with new programs added each week. Just visit the site to subscribe!)

Okay, first bit of news - Obama at ND. I'm not going to dwell on this much, because I am sure you are aware of it. Our news and Vortex have been covering this quite extensively - if you haven't seen all the cool stuff we've done, check out this page. Go on, go and check it out. I don't mind - I'll be here when you get back.

Lots of fun there - and that's been why it's been so busy. We have thousands of signatures on our petition, many hundreds of responses to our survey and lots of interest. We'll keep you posted on this!

Other stuff that has been going on; as many of you are no-doubt aware, there is a movement afoot which would remove the so-called "consience protection" from American laws. It's been mooted as part of FOCA, as an executive order etc. etc. What this would mean is that health-care workers would not be permitted to "opt out" of performing abortions - basically, it would be "perform abortions or lose your job".

Now, as everyone knows, the faithful Catholic (check out today's Vortex "It's all our fault" to show you what a really faithful Catholic should be!) would choose to lose his or her job. But, it shouldn't have to come to that. People should be permitted to not participate in murder when they joined a profession to save lives.

This is not rocket science, people.

The USCCB has produced this fine webpage which is devoted to the issue in question. Read it. It is awesome.

And what is also awesome is Bishop R. Walker Nickless of the Diocese of Souix City, Iowa. Now, having seen a picture of Bishop Nickless and read his name, I can confidently say there is no man alive who looks more "American" and has a more "American" sounding name.

In addition to being a classic example of Americana, Bishop Nickless is the latest bishop to come out and object to Obama @ ND. What Walker, Souix City Ranger, has done is write a wonderful letter - seriously, check it out - which addresses many of the evils facing our society today. Bishop Nickless has hit the nail right on the head here. He unashamedly calls President Obama's policies "homicidal".

Obviously, there are many bishops who have spoken out. Bishop Nickless gets the shout out because his chief of the evangelization office (Mark P. Thompson, which has to be about the second most American name I have ever heard) sent me an email.

So, to conclude - there are many awesome bishops out there, but Bishop Nickless has good PR.

If anyone has any other pro-life news which they would like to see included in this blog, shoot me an email at You don't have to look like you could have been carved on Mount Rushmore and be called something like L. Michael Grant Winchester III to get published but, frankly, it helps.

Keep checking out, and remember to subscribe if you haven't done so already!

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Jeff has a challenger!

We all know of the fine man Jeff who writes to Senators to complain and also finds me news. Jeff is a good friend and a holy warrior for Christ.

Well, now we have Greg! Greg also writes to Senators to complain about their support of FOCA and abortion and other immoral practices. Greg is also in the fine State of Michigan, and so he wrote to Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Read below the reply Greg got back (my comments are in the fine color red);

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me to express your views on the issue of abortion.

The issue of abortion is unquestionably the most difficult issue I have had to deal with during my years of service. I have struggled with all sides of the issue to determine not only what I personally believe, but, more important, what I should do as a legislator representing a diverse state of people who hold many different religious, moral and personal beliefs.

Abortion is a serious issue that has divided many sincere and honest people. Many believe that abortion is either absolutely right or absolutely wrong, (three of those people who thinks it would be wrong would be GOD, Senator!) while others feel it is acceptable only under certain limited conditions. Unfortunately, when the issue of abortion is debated in legislatures and in the Congress, representatives are often forced into choosing an absolute pro-abortion or anti-abortion stand. However, the questions I must decide as your Senator are not whether I am for or against abortion, but rather, what is the appropriate role of the government, and should government be making decisions about this intensely personal family matter.

Because of the diversity of perspectives and the intense personal nature of the abortion issue, I have taken the position that the choice of abortion is not a decision government should make or deny. (How do you square this with allowing abortions? Isn't that making a decision? Or do you just think it is the responsibility of government to allow people to do whatever they like to whomever they like?)

I also feel strongly that although it is not the proper role of government to decide whether abortion is right or wrong for individual families, the government does have some critical and important responsibilities as it relates to this issue. As a Senator and a mother, I have a personal and public commitment to those policies that support and sustain children in healthy and loving families.

As a country, we must do everything we can to provide support and encouragement to women who are pregnant and to promote responsible family planning when a woman does not want a child. ("Responsible" family planning is not having sex. Irresponsible family planning is murdering a child which already exists) Support services need to be available for pregnant teenagers and single mothers so they do not feel abortion is their only choice. We also need to provide better prenatal care, nutrition services, childcare, adoption programs, and economic opportunities for women. I believe that many women would not choose abortion if other help was available. (Is this why you have consistently supported legislation which makes it harder to get other help, Senator?)

I know that our country will continue to struggle and debate the abortion issue in the years ahead. As this debate goes on, I will continue to listen to and respect the views of others. I am hopeful that those who are divided by this issue can focus on areas of mutual agreement, because only by working together can we effectively strengthen and improve the lives of children and their families.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me.

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

So, the upshot of Senator Stabenow's position? "Hey, it's not the government's job to decide what people should or should not do!" Wow, I thought you were a Democrat, not an arch-libertarian, Senator? Is that D in the title D-MI short for "dashed-extreme-libertarian"? Or is is perhaps that you just got the little scrabble letters in the wrong order and it should read DIM?

It's not the government's job to decide whether or not a woman should kill her child? So, is it the government's job to decide if I should pay my taxes? Or wear clothes in public? Or shoot people with red hair in the face?

Hey, I like this idea of government - well, not really, but hear me out. Basically, Sen. Stab-em-now (and suck out their brains . . .) seems to be saying that the role of government is not to govern. Given that the very name "government" means "that which governs" this means she is saying her job is obsolete! How much does a Senator earn? More than me, I'll bet!

Hey, hey! Debbie says her job isn't necessary! You know, in these harsh economic times, everyone is wanting to streamline! So, let's fire Debbie! She admitted her job isn't necessary - it isn't her place to make laws!

I think that if we fired her we should distribute the money saved to everyone who reads this fine blog! And with that money, people could subscribe to! And that would be awesome, because they would get access to literally hundreds of hours of high-quality Catholic video whenever they want it!

Fire Debbie! Subscribe now!

Thursday, March 19, 2009

A simple explanation

(Before I get into today's little missive, I wish to mention that Natasha Richardson died yesterday. She was the wife of Liam Neeson, a man who played the mentor to two of my heroes - Obi-Wan Kenobi and Bruce Wayne - and who was also, I learned yesterday, a Catholic raising his children in the faith. I really don't know how much of a Catholic any of the Neeson family is, but if everyone who reads this can say a prayer for Natasha's soul and for the poor family left behind, I would be grateful).

Alright, on with the expose!

Today I learned news which is much less surprising than the death of Natasha Richardson; the United Way has now removed a policy relating to providing money to pro-abortion groups. To wit, the United Way now allows money to go to groups which provide abortions, but that money may not be used for abortions.

Check out the article concerning this matter here.

There isn't much to be said here, basically, this is a charitable group folding and collapsing when faced with a loss of donor money. It shows a lack of spine, of guts, of a couple of other parts of the human anatomy. The United Way have, it seems, rolled over and played dead.

So, the United Way is now providing funding to Planned Parenthood for services other than abortions. I want to make that very clear - because I am certain the UW is; they are not giving money which will be used for abortions, and they will only be giving money for services such as education, information etc. etc.

Sounds alright, doesn't it? I mean - okay, they are giving money to someone who is providing abortions, but they aren't paying for the abortions, right?

Right ... and it's still wrong.

Let me break this down to you by means of an example. Consider two people - Alice and Bob. Bob is person addicted to some kind of vile and illegal drug - and Alice knows this. And Bob is begging, he is begging for money. Now, Alice is wise and clever - she doesn't want to give him money and have him spend it on drugs. So, instead, she gives him money and makes him promise that he won't spend it on drugs.

And, you know what? Bob is very honest. Bob puts Alice $10 in his pocket and swears he won't spend it on drugs.

Clive comes along. Bob begs Clive for money, and because Clive doesn't care about people using drugs he gives him $10. Now Bob has $20. Clive never said Bob shouldn't spend the money on drugs, and so Bob goes and buys $10 worth of food using Alice's donation, and spends Clive's donation on drugs.

Do we understand my little ABC morality play here?

Donating money to provide for additional services which are not abortion simply frees up funds FOR abortions! And precisely WHAT is an "abortion related cost"? PP is silent on this, I note. If they pay for an office, is that abortion related because abortions go on there? Or not because other things do to? What about advertising - advertising doesn't kill anyone, right? What about "education" - precisely what are you educating people about?

Giving money to someone who murders, even if that money will never be spent on a knife, is immoral and wrong and should absolutely be stopped. United Way - shame on you for allowing a desire for money to get the better of you. Shame on you, shame on the horse you rode in on, and shame on the little girl who feeds it apples!

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Yet more from Jeff

As frequent readers of this fine blog will know, my mate Jeff often finds cool things for me. He doesn't write these things himself per se, but rather finds something from someone else.

Anyway, I reproduce the latest from Jeff - a list of pro-abortion actions taken by President Barack Obama before and after his election. This list is from, and I reproduce it here because it really speaks to the heart of what we are talking about on the P.O.'ed blog - President Barack "Never Knowingly Telling the Truth" Obama says he wants to reduce abortions. Well, in the immortal words of Elvis Presley "A little less talk and a lot more action!"

If you want to reduce abortions, Mister President, then stop signing bills and taking other steps which promote them!

Washington, DC ( -- The following is a compilation of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions.

Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration

November 5, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 19, 2008 - Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.

November 20, 2008 - Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.

November 24, 2008 - Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily's List as his White House communications director. Emily's List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.

November 24, 2008 - Obama puts former Emily's List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.

November 30, 2008 - Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.

December 10, 2008 - Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is "excited" about the selection.

December 10, 2008 - Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.

Pro-Abortion Presidential Record - 2009

January 5, 2009 - Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the chairman of the Democratic Party.

January 6, 2009 - Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.

January 22, 2009 - Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.

January 23, 2009 - Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.

January 26, 2009 - Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.

January 29, 2009 - President Obama nominates pro-abortion David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.

February 12, 2009 - Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General.

February 27, 2009 - Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.

February 28, 2009 - Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.

March 5, 2009 - The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

March 9, 2009 - President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.

March 10, 2009 - Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women's issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.

March 10, 2009 - Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.

March 11, 2009 - Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama's director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.

So, there you have it - in black and white (or, rather, two shades of blue) what President Obama has done to reduce abortion. Absolutely nothing.

Make sure that you continue to follow all the pro-life and abortion news, together with all the other news that is printed to fit, on You can register for free and get daily updates. For only $10 a month, you can get all the premium programs as well - literally hundreds of hours of video!

Don't delay! Subscribe today!

Monday, March 2, 2009


No, not a football reference (did I mention that I always liked American Football, even before I came to the USA? And even before I was an atheist teenager old enough to notice the pretty girls shaking their pom-poms?) - but rather a reference to the fact that Michael Voris has just returned from a conference in Denver (hence, "touching down on the tarmac at the airport") where he was speaking.

And I've only now found time to make a blog entry, because I was so busy last week with making stuff for Michael to take and sell (yes, you can buy copies of our DVDs and so forth - go to our awesome online store for the purposes of purchasing and supporting us in the worst recession this news cycle). But it is a shame I didn't get to post some stuff last week, because loads of things happened.

(Big shout out to Diane of the De Teum blog, for finding a lot of this story).

Bishop Martino of Scranton, PA has issued a second letter to Sen. Bob Casey. I consider this to be i) awesome and ii) a bit naive (really, Bishop? What makes you think a Democrat Senator can actually read?)

Anyway, when I am not being sarcastic, this story is a classic example of everything that we need in the Church today - Bishop Martino is not just saying something from the pulpit and in general pastoral letters; he is getting right in the evil, baby-killing faces of these "people" and telling them the way it needs to be. Bishop Martino sent one letter (as discussed elsewhere in this fine blog) which the Senator appears to have ignored. So, the Bishop has sent another letter which is firmer than the first - and has also issued very clear orders about who is to be given Communion and who is to be denied Communion.

Taken together, these two documents (read all about them here) make it very clear indeed that Sen. Cassey will not be recieving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Scranton until he changes his support for murder.

Good on Bishop Martino!

Expect further updates on the pro-life front, as well as some crazy rationalization, later on today!

Remember, keep up to date with all the news that's printed to fit - wait, that came out wrong. All the news Catholics need to hear! By going to and subscribing - it's free to get the news, and for only $10 a month you can subscribe to the Premium Channel which gives you literally hundreds of hours of video each week!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Release the Press!

Behold our awesome press-release!

Cool, huh? We broke a story concerning the abortion issue. We have arrived.

Anyway, Mike did a Vortex about this today on - you can check it out here, but why not subscribe and then you can check out all the stuff yourself? It is free or, for merely $10 a month, you can get the cool premium access programming which is literally hundreds of hours of high-quality Catholic video.

In other Nancy Pelosi related news, she and the Pope "did not see eye to eye". Quelle suprise, there . . . .

You know what? I would talk about this - about how Sen. Pelosi needs to get with the program, about how she is ignoring the pastoral letters, about how she lied about Catholic teaching and / or being familiar with it, about how she has obfuscated and hidden the agenda, about how she hides behind the "personally opposed but ..." mantra. There would be a lot to talk about.

But I can't be bothered - I have a taping of The One True Faith to get ready for tonight (hey, if you want FREE TICKETS TO A REAL LIVE TV SHOW!!!!1oneone click here to get them) and my time is valuable. So, it boils down to this;

Nancy (and all the rest of you pro-aborts); get with the program. ONE program. Just one - don't sit on that fence. Get with ONE program. Either be Catholic with all that entails, or be a pro-abort. Don't try to be both.

You sit on that fence too long, you'll get some splinters in some very nasty places.

Way Out West ....

Well, not really way out West for those of you west of the Mississippi, and certainly not way out West for those of your in the Mountains. In fact, east for those of you living in the moral horror of the Left Coast.

But, for us chaps over here in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard (and, to be fair, pretty much everywhere else in the world) what happens in North Dakota and Arizona is way out West.

I absolutely love "the West", as a completely pointless aside. I really do. My dad raised me (an Englishman!) on both kinds of music (Country and Western) and I have always loved the cowboy image. Okay, it's a parody and a cliche idea - but I do have family in Arizona. And here is a picture of me in Scottsdale sporting my stylish Western duds.

Total dude ranch, I know.

Where was I? Oh, yes - The Dakotan Personhood Amendment. As covered in our sister blog, the North Dakotans love Why? Because people from North Dakota are awesome, obviously. They are awesome because they pass stuff like this personhood amendment - and that awesomeness leads them to like the best Catholic video site EVER, which is us.

So, the legislature of the Roughrider State has passed this bill - or, rather, it has passed the Lower House and is moving into the Senate in a couple of weeks - which defines a child in the womb as a human being. This gives said child the legal protections normally afforded to humans. In case you missed the point of this; it is generally considered illegal to burn a human being alive with saline or drag his dead body about after sucking out his brains. You can read a lot more about the amendment here at this website the guys and gals from ND have set up.

It still has to clear the Senate - so if you are are North Dakotan, take time out from being cool and write to your State Senator and urge him or her to pass this thing, please!

Good news there on the pro-life front.

And in other news from way out West, there is a cause to publicly demonstrate in Phoenix, AZ about President Obama's policies to kill as many babies as humanly possible (I'm getting editorial, sorry). If you are in Arizona and you can spare the time from just hanging out and enjoying the fantastic beauty of the State, why not go and demonstrate? It should be nice in Phoenix right now.

So, that is my pro-life news update. Dakota and Arizona, two favorite States of mine. Normally, what with distance and everything, I don't get to see them as much as I would like. But, when they are in the pro-life news - hey, everyone is a winner.

And Arizona is the setting for next week's NCIS, which I think is great. The trailer for next week's episode suggests it features Ziva on a horse (always good) and - even more awesome - Gibbs shooting down a helicopter with a lever-action rifle.

That is awesome. But not even close to the North Dakotan Personhood Amendment. If Gibbs was from North Dakota, he wouldn't even need the rifle.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Whatever Happened To The Heroes?

On my personal blog (whose URL I won't share, as it is really just for my close friends and family) I posted a post today about the lack of heroes in the world. I was inspired by this post by events which happened to me on the internet, but it then struck me this topic was very relevant for this blog, and so please allow me to expand on it.

When I talk about heroes, I refer to people who have courage. And I mean moral courage - physical courage is, of course, valuable but it stems from moral courage. Moral courage is the most important thing - can we do what is right, even when it is difficult?

(As an aside, I riff on this theme in this podcast I did once.)

This realization was inspired by a number of people I met on the internet who were being excessively cruel to someone else - telling him to kill himself at the extreme level. And practically no-one spoke up about it but me. And I got vilified for it and have spent a lot of time writing to people and trying to explain my actions, and trying to persuade them that bullying is wrong.

Anyway, this issue struck me as being not only symptomatic of the general malaise in our world today, but also particularly applicable to the issue of abortion.

Surveys always show that the majority of Americans do NOT agree with the current status of abortion laws. Many people say that the majority of Americans are pro-life, but this is not quite the case (the majority of Americans feel that abortion should be legal in some sort of situation). However, the majority of Americans do not hold the pro-abortion views currently enshrined in our laws.

So, why is abortion on the books?

Answer - because there are no heroes any more.

In the same way as people won't speak up on the internet when someone is bullied, or the way people won't interfere if they see a girl being hit in a bar, or whatever - people don't seem to be willing to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe they think they will be hurt or ridiculed or fired or whatever. Maybe they just don't want to be socially different from the "norm".

But at the core of all these reasons is fear - I dare not speak out. I dare not speak up.

And because of this, evil goes unchecked. People who are personally opposed (and are REALLY personally opposed, not just saying they are) might think no-one should have an abortion, but they never do anything about it. They don't speak out against it, they don't tell anyone it's wrong.

And so it continues.

What is my point here? It's pretty simple - but it might be hard to listen to. If we (as people who are GENUINELY personally opposed to abortion) don't actually DO anything, then how are we different from those who just SAY they are personally opposed? What is the practical difference?

Sure - we might know the truth deep down in our hearts, but if we don't act on it? What then?

And, most importantly, if we don't do anything . . . . is it REALLY true in our hearts?