With What Time Is Given

This article, http://www.lifenews.com/state2286.html, is definitely worth a read.  A college student at UCLA posed as a 15 year old girl impregnated by a 23 year old man and entered Planned Parenthood to seek counseling.  PP of course told her to get an abortion so that her boyfriend would not get into trouble, encouraged the girl to lie about her due date and offered to give her a contact who would get her public funding for her abortion without asking any questions.  Not only was all of this illegal, but the girl caught it all on tape and posted it on the net.

 PP has a history, and arguably a policy of breaking these very laws across the country, which is how the girl knew that the sting would work in the first place.  Besides widespread class action suits, PP counselors could very well be prosecuted as accomplices after the fact, and should an actual policy be in place for such counseling, under RICO statutes. 

In the face of so many legal violations, what was PP’s reaction?  Sticking to what they do best, they tried to deal with the issue by killing it.  PP threatened the girl, erroneously warned her that she broke the law, (she did not), and threatened to assess her three separate $5,000 fines unless she took down the YouTube video immediately.  Their legal theory?  The privacy laws.  In other words, the right to privacy is being argued to provide legal cover for covering up statutory rape and the counselor is asserting the privacy right against the one who was offered counseling. 

They’re completely nuts.  They are willing to do anything to kill as many unborn babies as they can because that is their bread and butter.  They have no respect for our criminal laws.  They take a mob-like approach to threatening those who might expose how they’ve broken the law. 

The media is often criticized for a “liberal bias”, almost universally by conservatives in the blogosphere.  Recently, major Democratic primary candidates refused to debate on the Fox News network because of a perceived “conservative” bias.  

I myself am a believer that there is a liberal media bias.  Over the past seven years, I have seen many Pro-Choice articles/editorials on cnn.com, but have yet to see a single Pro-Life editorial.  I have seen ABC News and the Associated Press - which is replicated in newspapers all across the country, repeatedly get their facts wrong on the abortion issue, to favor the paradigm of choice over life, misquoting statistics and giving clearly uneven amounts of quote or air time, using adjectives and words reflecting a partisan viewpoint. 

Though I expect there to be some degree of reporter’s opinions impacting their arguments, I think it would be better if certain newspapers and news networks openly declared themselves to be partisan mouthpieces when they do so.  If Lou Dobbs wants to plug immigration reform on CNN, he should not pretend to be an objective reporter when plugging his pet issue. 

The major networks are losing viewers and newspaper circulation is down across the country an average of 2.1%.  See http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070430/newspapers_circulation.html?.v=1.  The biggest losers include many of the top 20 newspapers by volume across the country - http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070430/newspapers_circulation_list.html?.v=1.  The New York Times lost over 20,000 subscribers - or 1.9%.  The Los Angeles Times lost about 33,000 subscribers or 4.2%.  The Washington Post lost about 25,000 subscribers, or 3.5%.  The biggest loser was the Dallas Morning News, who lost over 56,000 subscribers, or 14.3%.  Newsday lost 28,000 or 6.9%.  The NYT, LAT, and WaPo, respectively are oft-criticized targets of the label of liberal media bias.  That is likely part of the equation. 

Also, however, more people are switching to getting their news online, which can be cheaper and give more perspectives.  The major newspapers themselves are moving more and more into trying to compensate for lost print readership through increasing online readership.  The war for the blogosphere rages on, but it is clear that both liberals and conservatives have heavy presences.  The power of groups like moveon.org, the liberal think tank funded by Hungarian billionaire George Soros, has had a tremendous impact on American politics.  At this stage, liberals have likely done a better job of galvanizing support for candidates online, a political fundraising medium revolutionized by Howard Dean’s failed 2004 Presidential campaign.

By contrast, conservatives dominate talk radio.  Liberal talk shows on the radio have faltered, even those with heavy advertising support.  Many of the Christian radio programs, though apolitical, are classified as conservative because of conservative positions on social issues like abortion, abstinence education, school choice and gay marraige. 

This deficit of the liberal message in this particular medium of talk radio has led Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic party, to call for increased regulation of the airwaves.  George Will has this editorial http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366765/site/newsweek/, on what he believes Dean is trying to accomplish through a Constitutionally suspect program that would force equal air time under a “fairness” scheme, irrespective of consumer demand.  The “fairness doctrine”’s problem is that historically it has been the government that has determined who the opposing viewpoints are that merit air time and as such whatever powers that are in power in D.C. would wield a great influence over the airwaves.  I believe this type of government interference with the media is exactly the sort of thing that the First Amendment was designed to prevent. 

Around the world now, there are startling attacks on the right to free speech.  Russian print/radio media are not allowed to criticize the government with more than 50% of the editorial views, as monitored by - you guessed it, the Russian government.  Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator has tightened his grip over the press and the military, where every soldier must proclaim “Socialism or death” or “find a new job”.  In Europe and Canada, hate speech is illegal in many places and loosely defined, precluding people from arguing against gay marriage.  (As an aside, I have no strong position on gay marriage one way or another, but I believe it is ludicrous to call opposing gay marriage when someone believes marriage to be a heterosexual institution “hate speech”). 

Stepping literally into a different universe from the usual subjects of my posts, this article http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070424/D8ON8OSG0.html, excited my imagination.  The story is that a “short” 120 trillion miles away, that 120,000,000,000,000, there is another planet that may be habitable for human life, with average temperatures between 32 and 104 degrees.  The bad news?  Turns out that 120 trillion miles poses a difficult question of how to get there.  Go figure.  The good news?  Scientists believe that if there is one such planet near a “red dwarf” star, which make up 80% of the stars “near” our solar system, there may be many more.  Also, those suns would last a lot longer than ours.  It may be possible, therefore, to colonize the universe, a dream as old as . . . well, as old as Star Trek anyways.

The current state of space exploration involves trips to the moon or Mars and now private companies getting into “Space Tourism” where for a mere 20 million bucks, you can spend some time in outer space.  Still, it entices the imagination.  Given the threats of weapons of mass destruction, the possible existence of global warming, etc., it might not be bad for mankind to branch out into the universe a bit.

The Pope has recently discussed this very topic.  http://www.lifenews.com/int257.html has the story.

Partial birth abortion is now illegal in the United States.  See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ2NI80.html.  This particularly gruesome abortion procedure involves actually birthing the baby, then jabbing a sharp instrument into the back of the skull, sucking out the baby’s brains, and then dragging the mutilated corpse out, hence “partial birth”.  Though the ban is supported by supermajority popular support, only with the addition of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court was the balance tipped 5-4 against the procedure.  One more vote and we can overturn Roe v. Wade!  It is also likely that this landmark will spur on Pro-Life efforts across the country.  Now more than ever we need one more Supreme Court Justice, and one more Pro-Life president in 2008 will do the trick.  If we can avoid Giuliani, and others who are not committed to appointing that crucial 5th Justice, we can end the horror that has claimed nearly 50,000,000 American lives since 1973, and start bringing the fight to the state level.

The 5-4 Supreme Court majority gives a green light to the states to retry abortion restrictions such as parental notification, parental consent, waiting periods, laws requiring a woman be given information on all her options and not just abortion, laws requiring abortion clinics to meet the same health standards as any other medical facility, laws requiring abortuaries to report statutory rape and not help cover it up with abortion, laws making it a double homicide to murder a pregnant woman and her unborn child and laws that recognize as homicide acts where a woman is attacked and her unborn baby killed, etc. - all of which have been vigorously opposed by the Pro-Choice and pro-abortion lobby for so called “women’s rights.” 

A few months ago, I recall seeing on the news a segment on how the U.S. population had hit 300,000,000 for the first time.  Some said this was a sign of world populations spinning out of control but recent figures released from the U.S. Census Bureau paint a very different picture.  The birth rate in America has fallen below 2 children per couple, which means we are no longer reproducing ourselves.  CNN has an interesting article http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/05/metro.population.ap/index.html, noting that urban populations across the country would be sustaining heavy percentage losses if not for the presence of immigrants.  The urban population of New York City, for instance, added 1 million immigrants between 2000 and 2006, without whom, the city would have lost 600,000 people simply due to low birth rates.  Cities across the country reflect a similar pattern, particularly in large urban centers.  The article also states that 36,000,000 people living in America are immigrants, including roughly 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.  That’s 12% of our entire population, without whom we’d be down to 264,000,000, not to even mention children of immigrants.  That’s also 36 million less people plus their children living in the countries they came from. 

This demographic pattern is replicated across the globe as industrialized nations tend to have drastically low birthrates and sustain their populations through immigrants from the third world, and stands as a stark contrast to anything we’ve seen throughout history up until the last 40 to 50 years.  In Russia, the decrease in Russian birth rates has been declared by Putin to be the number one problem facing their country.  Over half of Russian pregnancies now end in abortion.  In South Korea, the underpopulation crisis is so severe that their government is spending $20,000,000,000.00 a year to help combat it by offering incentives that are more pro-family.  In Italy and Spain, the population crisis is most pronounced, where the paltry 1.2 children per two adults are among the lowest in the world, and would be even lower if not for their sizable immigrant populations.  At their demographic trajectory, 99% of ethnic Spanish and Italians will have disappeared in two centuries, what for lack of a better term is auto-genocide.  England, France, Germany, and Canada all face similar demographic shifts.  While some of them sustain their populations through immigration, the third world population has been heavily eroded through the corresponding emigration.

Giuliani, leading the current GOP field, supports both publicly funded abortion and Roe v. Wade.  His so-called deal with social conservatives was to give them judges that are strict constructionists.  Giuliani said this week however that he believes strict constructionists can go either way on Roe v. Wade and wants judges who will respect that precedent.  In addition to his support for embryonic stem cell research, which involves creating human life for the sole purpose of destroying it for research, support of abortion as a human right through the U.N. and opposition to most all Pro-Life efforts, I am completely befuddled as to how this man remains atop the polls for the Pro-Life party of the GOP.  If he captures the nomination, I urge all who care about the abortion issue to vote against him, even if it means voting for Hilary or Obama, because at least that way we’ll get a Pro-Life candidate by 2012, whereas if he wins, we won’t see another Pro-Life candidate until at least 2016.  See http://www.lifenews.com/nat3019.html for details on his statements and backtracking on judges.  http://www.lifenews.com/nat3021.html

Giuliani, leading the current GOP field, supports both publicly funded abortion and Roe v. Wade.  His so-called deal with social conservatives was to give them judges that are strict constructionists.  Giuliani said this week however that he believes strict constructionists can go either way on Roe v. Wade and wants judges who will respect that precedent.  In addition to his support for embryonic stem cell research, which involves creating human life for the sole purpose of destroying it for research, support of abortion as a human right through the U.N. and opposition to most all Pro-Life efforts, I am completely befuddled as to how this man remains atop the polls for the Pro-Life party of the GOP.  If he captures the nomination, I urge all who care about the abortion issue to vote against him, even if it means voting for Hilary or Obama, because at least that way we’ll get a Pro-Life candidate by 2012, whereas if he wins, we won’t see another Pro-Life candidate until at least 2016.  See http://www.lifenews.com/nat3019.html for details on his statements and backtracking on judges.  http://www.lifenews.com/nat3021.html

 

See http://www.lifenews.com/nat2918.html.  The claim is that as many as 50% of teenage abotions are avoided when a parent is involved with their child.  This indicates that far more teenage girls are benefitting from having their parents involved in their crisis situations and their children are being saved.  This should be common sense, but unfortunately, the abortionists and their movement do not always see it as such.

In addition to posting here on occasion, I am launching a new blog that will deal specifically with the 2008 Presidential race and the primaries leading up to it.  The web site is http://presidentialcandidates08.blog.com/.  As much as possible, my posts will seek to be objective analysis, although comments are of course welcome from readers.