Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nation’s Largest Teachers’ Union Embraces ‘Fundamental Right to Abortion’

Over the weekend, the National Education Association adopted a new “business item” declaring its support for “the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.” The NEA is the most influential teachers’ union in the United States, and with more than three million members is also the nation’s largest labor union of any kind.

Here’s more from Business Item 56:

The NEA will honor the leadership of women, non-binary, and trans people, and other survivors who have come forward to publicly name their rapists and attackers in the growing, international, #MeToo movement.

Furthermore, the NEA will include an assertion of our defense of a person’s right to control their own body, especially for women, youth, and sexually marginalized people. The NEA vigorously opposes all attacks on the right to choose and stands on the fundamental right to abortion under Roe v. Wade.

 

The statement goes on to assert that this new stance is necessary because “the most misogynistic forces, under Trump, want to abolish the gains of the women’s right movement.” The NEA’s change in rhetoric on abortion is a departure from several decades of couching its stance in terms of “reproductive freedom.”

( Read more of the above story at https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nations-largest-teachers-union-embraces-fundamental-right-to-abortion/?inf_contact_key=eb259dcc870dc148e73ffa7dd8411a267e470d92b8b75168d98a0b8cac0e9c09 )

Advertisements

Starbucks should be glad the police will not act like this

Catcher helps batter from the other team

https://www.facebook.com/SoftballRooted/videos/853675411698604?s=1602125893&v=e&sfns=mo

Love kitty cats

https://www.facebook.com/LoveKittyCatsOfficial/videos/2765246466823973?s=1602125893&v=e&sfns=mo

The Nebraska Supreme Court was right to not say a divorce parent is wrong for not taking a child to MASS

In the course of their divorce proceedings, Patrick W. Gomez and Elizabeth A. Gomez … agreed to a stipulated parenting plan. That plan, which was later incorporated in the decree dissolving their marriage, gave Patrick and Elizabeth joint legal and physical custody of their two children and set forth a schedule in which the parents would exercise parenting time. The parenting plan also included a provision that the children “will be enrolled and be participants in the Catholic religion” and set forth several specific Catholic religious activities in which the children would participate. Attendance at Catholic Mass was not mentioned.

 ( source  https://reason.com/2019/07/05/if-children-will-be-enrolled-and-be-participants-in-the-catholic-religion-does-this-require-taking-them-to-mass/ )

   Now why is it two people who can not get along want the courts to handle it. Should the courts handle a question of faith. Isn’t that  a family issue. That is my point. Faith belongs in the church. The priests and the parents should get together. End of story. The courts should stay out of it. We have too many courts involved in church and family issues today. Tell me if i am off my rocker. Which is possible at my old age. 

ACLU is trying to stop a law that keeps babies safe with a heartbeat

With only one abortion clinic remaining open in the Show Me State, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wants the people of Missouri to vote on a new abortion law and take away protections for babies with heartbeats.

The law in Missouri bans abortions on or beyond the eighth week of pregnancy, and in the case of a minor seeking an abortion, the law requires consent from both of her parents. And because lawmakers made this an emergency clause, the law took effect as soon as Gov. Mike Parson (R-Mo.) signed the legislation.

Under Missouri law, there is no right for a referendum when the law is addressing an emergency.

However, the ACLU is arguing that parental consent is not actually an emergency.

 

A three-judge panel of the state’s Court of Appeals agreed and ruled that Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R-Mo.) was “without authority” to reject petitions to put the law on the 2020 ballot – on constitutional grounds.

Full story at  https://onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2019/07/10/aclu-moves-to-stop-mo-law-that-saves-babies-wheartbeats

In God We Trust

Listen to the commentary.

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/compass-hey-howard/listen/in-god-we-trust-764581.html

BreakPoint: Abortion and the Worldview of Irresponsibility

Download MP3 Audio Here

 

Most people don’t know this, but early feminists—including suffragette Susan B. Anthony—were deeply opposed to abortion. A surprisingly honest Saturday Night Live sketch from a couple of years ago captured the shock of a group of progressive young ladies, who when they meet Anthony are shocked to learn her less-than-progressive views on a woman’s so-called right to choose.

Even more, Anthony and other early feminists clearly stated why they opposed abortion. Besides calling it murder, they argued that abortion allows men to use women to satisfy their appetites, and then throw them aside. In an 1875 speech entitled “Social Purity,”Anthony put abortion alongside “breach of promise, divorce, adultery, bigamy, seduction, rape…wife murders…[and] infanticides” as evils perpetrated by men against women and children.

In an 1869 article in Anthony’s newspaper, an anonymous author (who most assume is Anthony herself), condemned abortion in no uncertain terms, laying it primarily at the feet of men: “No matter the motive,” she wrote, “[whether] love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

Times have changed. What was once a feminist argument against abortion has become a talking point for it. A recent editorial in the Huffington Post entitled “Access to Abortion Changes Cis Men’s Lives Too” makes exactly such a claim. For those who aren’t up-to-speed on gender-theory lingo, “Cis” is short for “Cisgender,” which just means non-trans and non-gay. Why that word even exists is another story. 

In the HuffPo piece, Emma Gray argues that abortion is good for straight men, because it allows them to get rid of an unplanned child and get on with their educations and careers. She tells the stories of males (I cannot call them “men”) who say that “forced parenthood” would have been a disaster for them. She remarks how lucky they were to live in states where their girlfriends could just visit an abortion clinic, so they could dispose of the child and move on to more important things. As one pro-abortion journalist she approvingly quotes tweeted: “Behind millions of successful men is an abortion they don’t regret getting with their partner.”

Gray goes on: “…carrying an unintended pregnancy to term can mean giving up on professional and educational dreams. It can mean sacrificing financial stability. It can mean being tied to the wrong relationship forever….”

And then she quotes these fathers who—along with their partners—chose abortion over responsibility: “Access to abortion changed my life,” said one. Another said, “Anytime I am able to think about my career on a…normal trajectory and the fact that I was able to finish school…I can almost always tie it back to [the abortion].” “If your girlfriend breaks her leg,” said another, “you want to take her to the doctor instead of let it be a lingering issue that she has to deal with for the rest of her life.”

Wow. What a hero.

Apparently, for this man and the Huffington Post, a baby is like a broken bone, and abortion is the splint that can get unwilling parents’ lives back on track. Of course, the life of the innocent child killed in the name of convenience will never get back on track.

Susan B. Anthony and other early feminists decried abortion as a way for men to dodge responsibility. Today, abortion supporters see male irresponsibility as a positive good, no matter who dies in the process. By doing so, they’ve liberated men, but not women. They’ve enslaved women to male lusts, and given men a “get-out-of-jail-free” card.

What kind of a self-centered worldview puts a father’s dreams ahead of a child’s life? As Susan B. Anthony would have argued, it’s not a worldview that anybody who believes in women’s rights should ever embrace.

 

Resources

Susan B. Anthony: Another Anti-Choice Fanatic 

  • Greg Schleppenbach
  • Southern Nebraska Register
  • February 11, 2011
Marriage and Maternity

  • The Revolution
  • July 8, 1869
Access To Abortion Changes Cis Men’s Lives Too

  • Emma Gray
  • Huffington Post
  • June 12, 2019

 

Followers of Jesus should at times be mean: The Point:

Download MP3 Audio Here

 

American Conservative blogger Rod Dreher recently shared the sobering account of a veteran college minister who says that a huge percentage of the students he’s worked with have abandoned Christian orthodoxy regarding sex since graduating and now affirm same-sex relationships. Why? The minister suggests “they are terrified of being seen as mean.”

Of course, peer-pressure is nothing new, but Christian young people seem uniquely prone today. They’ve been taught to love people as Christ did and in today’s culture, loving people means tolerance, acceptance, and affirming their every choice. And above all, not being mean.

Dreher offers an obvious-but-radical solution: We’ll need to teach our kids how to be okay with being called mean—and how to stand up for what they believe, anyway. We’ll have to counter the idea that being liked means they’re right and being called mean means they’re wrong.

After all, if what they’ve been taught is true, then the least loving thing we can do is lie.

 

Resources

Post-Graduation Fall From Christian Orthodoxy

  • Rod Dreher
  • The American Conservative
  • July 1, 2019

The truth about the Stonewall Riots

The Event: The Stonewall riots in New York City on June 28 and 29, 1969.

Why It Matters: The Stonewall riots helped launch the social and political movement known as “gay liberation.”

 

What Happened: In 1967, three members of the Genovese crime family opened a bar at the Stonewall Inn located in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan. Within two years it would become the largest gay establishment in the United States, catering to drag queens, transgender people, male prostitutes, and homeless male teens.

The bar violated many city laws, such as operating without a liquor license and lacking fire exits. Bartenders did not have access to running water behind the bar, and served drinks in dirty, used glasses (patrons blamed an outbreak of hepatitis on the bar’s unhygienic conditions). The bar was only able to stay open because the mafia-connected owners reportedly bribed police with around $1,200 a month to turn a blind eye to the goings on at the establishment.

Raids on such illegal taverns by the police were common at the time, and gay bars could be expected to be raided about once a month. Despite the alleged payoffs, though, the bartenders at the Stonewall Inn were unaware of the raid on June 28. When six police officers attempted to close the bar at 1:20 a.m., the 200 patrons resisted. When he crowd outside grew to 500 and escalated to violence, the police officers barricaded themselves inside the Stonewall Inn. The rioters threw rocks and bricks and attempted to burn down the building with the police inside.

The Tactical Patrol Force of the New York City Police Department arrived an hour later and by 4 a.m. had managed to quell the riot. Two nights later, though, rioting broke out again with protestors becoming even more violent. Hundreds of police clashed with a thousand rioters until the early hours of Sunday morning.

What It Means Today: A mafia-owned bar where homeless teens were plied with drinks and taken advantage of by predatory men and made famous for violent attacks and attempted murder of police may seem to be an unlikely location for a U.S. National Monument. But in 2016 President Obama added the illegal bar alongside the Statue of Liberty and Booker T. Washington’s birthplace on the short list of national monuments.

Three years earlier, in his second inaugural address, President Obama had mentioned “Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall”—equating the starting point for the so-called gay liberation movement with women’s suffrage and civil rights for African Americans.

“Out of the Stonewall riots of 1969—a violent anti-police action that in its memorialization has been largely defanged—the Gay Liberation Movement formed,” Harvard professor Michael Bronski wrote in Boston Review. “Gay Liberation saw itself as a vanguard of the New Left. Central to its politics was the battle against gender and sexual oppression as well as racism, capitalism, and imperialism.”

While the gay liberation movement adopted many of the radical ideas of the 1970s, these activists were particularly enamored with eliminating the institutions related to the traditional family, such as a marriage and child rearing. In 1972 members of Boston’s Gay Men’s Liberation handed out a ten-point list of demands at the Democratic National Convention. Item number six on their list was:

 

Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over “their” children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour childcare centers should be established where fa*****s and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing.

( Read the full column at  How 1969 Changed America: The Stonewall Riots

  • Joe Carter
  • The Gospel Coalition
  • June 30, 2019 )