Abortion, in Russia and in Obamaland
According to Reuters, last July Russia went where the Obama administration dares not go on the issue of abortion. With a declining birth rate and one of the highest abortion rates in the world, the Russians mandated that abortion providers carry warnings of health risks in their advertisements.
Ironically, the now-defunct Union of Soviet Socialists Republics under Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks was one of the first nations on the planet to legalize aborting pre-born babies in 1920. Ninety one years later, Russia is finally coming to the realization that abortion can be almost as harmful to women as it is to fetuses.
The administration of Barack Hussein Obama can evidently learn a few things about the “procedure” from the administration of Dmitry Medvedev and Vlad Putin: Abortion not only has terminal effects on the pre-born, it can have deleterious effects on the mothers who abort them.
The most pro-abortion American president in history, a distinction preceded by his record as the most pro-abortion United States senator during his two-year stint in that august body and his history as an Illinois state senator where he voted in favor of requiring that babies born during botched abortions be left to die, Obama hasn’t done or said much lately regarding abortion.
(See “Obama Flips OFF Babies, http://bit.ly/q4pHk3.)
Election 2012 is less than thirteen months away so he prefers to have his henchmen do his dirty work.
With America’s predominant abortionist posing as a “family planner,” Planned Parenthood of America, exposed as a fraud and its taxpayer funding under scrutiny by House of Representative Republicans, Obama’s henchmen are duly stressed and forced to execute his policies surreptitiously and cunningly.
Thus, they quietly ended a five year agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the USCCB.
Catholics, of course, are notorious for staunchly holding to the principles that human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that abortion is an abomination but the agreement in question was irrelevant to those beliefs. Rather, the rescinded $19 million grant related to comprehensive services provided by the USCCB to assist sex trafficking victims–2700 since 2006–with food, clothing and access to medical care . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5704.)
Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Thursday, September 15, 2011
What Goes Around Comes Around, Sometimes
What Goes Around Comes Around, Sometimes
. . . How the ACLU construes the Ten Commandments as endorsements of any particular faith is a mystery. How it fails to find any “secular purpose” in warning kids not to murder one another, etc. is even more mysterious. That’s just what the ACLU does.
Baltimore’s Teonna Brown can readily be dismissed as a hateful twit. The ACLU seems unaware that when a country rejects the moral foundations on which it was founded, it ceases to be a moral nation.
What came around to Brown was proper justice. Virginia’s Giles County School Board administered its own justice by circumventing the ACLU and telling it where to stick its complaint. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5451.)
. . . How the ACLU construes the Ten Commandments as endorsements of any particular faith is a mystery. How it fails to find any “secular purpose” in warning kids not to murder one another, etc. is even more mysterious. That’s just what the ACLU does.
Baltimore’s Teonna Brown can readily be dismissed as a hateful twit. The ACLU seems unaware that when a country rejects the moral foundations on which it was founded, it ceases to be a moral nation.
What came around to Brown was proper justice. Virginia’s Giles County School Board administered its own justice by circumventing the ACLU and telling it where to stick its complaint. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5451.)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The ACLU, the IACHR, and You
The ACLU, the IACHR, and You
It may be difficult for them to admit, but sometimes people end up in the wrong job, the wrong place, and on the wrong side of issues.
“Wrong,” of course, is a subjective term but sometimes it’s so obvious that people are misplaced that it’s impossible not to say they should be engaged in a different profession, office, position, or even located in a different country.
The conglomeration of odd folks at the “American” Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, is a prime case in point.
Recently, once again true to form, the ACLU demonstrated that they are anything but Americans and, if they harbor even a smidgen of self-respect and sense of honor should re-locate or, at the minimum, re-title their organization. They have rarely acted on behalf of American rights unless, that is, we consider terrorists and other reprobates deserving of liberties or if we believe American institutions such as Christmas are un-American.
This time around in a long history of anti-American advocacies, the ACLU lauded its victory in a “landmark,” disturbing, decision by an international tribunal against the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, and common sense in the case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States.
Jessica Gonzalez, now Lenahan, doesn’t seem to be a typical ACLU reprobate, just a malcontent dissatisfied with American jurisprudence.
With the enthusiastic assistance of the ACLU, Lenahan petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the IACHR, over a horrendous matter involving the murder of her three young daughters by her estranged husband.
On its website, the ACLU gave its version of the outcome: ”The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.” Actually, it is more a travesty and additional evidence that the ACLU has little if any regard for our law. Lenahan’s children were shamefully unprotected but no less so than the integrity of our Constitution.
Castle Rock, Colorado police were accused by Lenahan of ignoring her pleas for help twelve years ago when her husband defied a restraining order and took and shot to death their three girls. The import of that horror goes far beyond the act itself and SCOTUS’ 9-2 ruling in 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police protection.
Case closed? Not even close. Whatever one thinks of the Castle Rock police or the Supreme Court’s finding, what ensued was an ominous development for the United States.
Lenahan took her case to the ACLU which in turn sought intervention by the IACHR. That body, which “derives its authority from the Organization of American States Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights,” an organ of the Organization of American States, the OAS, separate and distinct from the United States, decided in her favor.
The IACHR deemed that Lenahan’s international human rights had been violated and had the further impertinence to also recommend that American law and American policies toward domestic violence should be changed. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5288)
It may be difficult for them to admit, but sometimes people end up in the wrong job, the wrong place, and on the wrong side of issues.
“Wrong,” of course, is a subjective term but sometimes it’s so obvious that people are misplaced that it’s impossible not to say they should be engaged in a different profession, office, position, or even located in a different country.
The conglomeration of odd folks at the “American” Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, is a prime case in point.
Recently, once again true to form, the ACLU demonstrated that they are anything but Americans and, if they harbor even a smidgen of self-respect and sense of honor should re-locate or, at the minimum, re-title their organization. They have rarely acted on behalf of American rights unless, that is, we consider terrorists and other reprobates deserving of liberties or if we believe American institutions such as Christmas are un-American.
This time around in a long history of anti-American advocacies, the ACLU lauded its victory in a “landmark,” disturbing, decision by an international tribunal against the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, and common sense in the case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States.
Jessica Gonzalez, now Lenahan, doesn’t seem to be a typical ACLU reprobate, just a malcontent dissatisfied with American jurisprudence.
With the enthusiastic assistance of the ACLU, Lenahan petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the IACHR, over a horrendous matter involving the murder of her three young daughters by her estranged husband.
On its website, the ACLU gave its version of the outcome: ”The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.” Actually, it is more a travesty and additional evidence that the ACLU has little if any regard for our law. Lenahan’s children were shamefully unprotected but no less so than the integrity of our Constitution.
Castle Rock, Colorado police were accused by Lenahan of ignoring her pleas for help twelve years ago when her husband defied a restraining order and took and shot to death their three girls. The import of that horror goes far beyond the act itself and SCOTUS’ 9-2 ruling in 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police protection.
Case closed? Not even close. Whatever one thinks of the Castle Rock police or the Supreme Court’s finding, what ensued was an ominous development for the United States.
Lenahan took her case to the ACLU which in turn sought intervention by the IACHR. That body, which “derives its authority from the Organization of American States Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights,” an organ of the Organization of American States, the OAS, separate and distinct from the United States, decided in her favor.
The IACHR deemed that Lenahan’s international human rights had been violated and had the further impertinence to also recommend that American law and American policies toward domestic violence should be changed. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5288)
Sunday, April 4, 2010
You Go, Sheriff Joe! Part Two
You Go, Sheriff Joe! Part Two
. . . They also don’t appreciate his brand of law enforcement, not mollycoddling the thousands of illegals and other miscreants he rounds up and incarcerates and treats like prisoners rather than as wards of the state to be indulged and entertained.
He dresses his prisoners in shocking pink underwear to soothe them, feeds them spare prison fare–two fifteen cent meals a day without salt and pepper– plays Sinatra and opera on his in-house radio station, houses some in tents, and has used all-female and all-youth chain gangs.
Most recently he has come up with a unique idea which will no doubt infuriate Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union which already oppose his tactics.
The idea could be summarized as, “You wanna watch, you gotta pedal,” meaning that any prisoners who want to watch more television must pedal exercise bikes to generate the electricity needed to power their tvs: http://bit.ly/cxSyXB
Under his pedaling policy, Maricopa inmates . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1613)
. . . They also don’t appreciate his brand of law enforcement, not mollycoddling the thousands of illegals and other miscreants he rounds up and incarcerates and treats like prisoners rather than as wards of the state to be indulged and entertained.
He dresses his prisoners in shocking pink underwear to soothe them, feeds them spare prison fare–two fifteen cent meals a day without salt and pepper– plays Sinatra and opera on his in-house radio station, houses some in tents, and has used all-female and all-youth chain gangs.
Most recently he has come up with a unique idea which will no doubt infuriate Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union which already oppose his tactics.
The idea could be summarized as, “You wanna watch, you gotta pedal,” meaning that any prisoners who want to watch more television must pedal exercise bikes to generate the electricity needed to power their tvs: http://bit.ly/cxSyXB
Under his pedaling policy, Maricopa inmates . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1613)
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Final Prejudice: Catholicism
The Final Prejudice: Catholicism
L. Brent Bozell concludes his brief essay, “A Year of Anti-Religious Bigotry” with this passage: “Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in America. In our news and entertainment media today, anti-Catholicism remains ‘the last acceptable prejudice.’ It is not that the cultural left is out of touch. It is out to destroy.”
Sound exaggerated? As a Roman Catholic, I would suggest Bozell’s remarks seem exaggerated only to non-Catholics and to the leftists to whom he refers.
In his book, The Enemy at Home, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza defines the cultural left as referring mainly to “the left wing of the Democratic Party . . . [including] the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, and Moveon.org.”
According to D’Souza, among the stars of that group are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbara Boxer, Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky, and the late Ted Kennedy and its influential allies in Congress, Hollywood, the media, the non-profit sector, and the universities: http://bit.ly/cfEEFR
That’s some powerful army!
D’Souza’s controversial book focuses on the relationship between the cultural left and September 11th, 2001 as opposed to Bozell’s immediate interest in its effect on religion, specifically on Catholicism, which leads to the obvious question of, Why? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1542)
L. Brent Bozell concludes his brief essay, “A Year of Anti-Religious Bigotry” with this passage: “Catholicism is the single largest religious denomination in America. In our news and entertainment media today, anti-Catholicism remains ‘the last acceptable prejudice.’ It is not that the cultural left is out of touch. It is out to destroy.”
Sound exaggerated? As a Roman Catholic, I would suggest Bozell’s remarks seem exaggerated only to non-Catholics and to the leftists to whom he refers.
In his book, The Enemy at Home, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza defines the cultural left as referring mainly to “the left wing of the Democratic Party . . . [including] the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch, and Moveon.org.”
According to D’Souza, among the stars of that group are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbara Boxer, Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky, and the late Ted Kennedy and its influential allies in Congress, Hollywood, the media, the non-profit sector, and the universities: http://bit.ly/cfEEFR
That’s some powerful army!
D’Souza’s controversial book focuses on the relationship between the cultural left and September 11th, 2001 as opposed to Bozell’s immediate interest in its effect on religion, specifically on Catholicism, which leads to the obvious question of, Why? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1542)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Forgive Us Our Trespassess
Forgive Us Our Trespasses
Certain stories are very suggestive of significant alterations in the future of our great nation. These are just four of them. Read them and weep:
Turn in Your First Amendment Privileges Upon Entering these Premises!
All employees of the Santa Rosa (CA) School District have been put on notice. They are now required to tuck their freedoms of speech and religion in a pocket or purse when in attendance at “any school event,” including breaks, after school activities, or at on-campus private events.
Better yet, they should deposit their constitutional rights in the nearest trash receptacle, as per an order “crafted” for the school district by the American Civil Liberties Union.
You really have to hand it to the ACLU for its sticktoitiveness in undermining American values and liberties at every opportunity, that is, unless you’re a terrorist, a rapist, an anarchist or indulge in some other anti-social, anti-American behaviors.
Then the ACLU will defend you to its dying breath, which can’t come soon enough.
Santa Rosa “School officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone ‘communicating with a deity,’ such as ‘bowing the head’ or ‘folding hands.’
“School officials” must also prohibit “third-parties” from praying, which provision has forced some employees to seek refuge in closets: “Christian employees said the order has literally driven them to hide in closets to pray to avoid contempt charges.”
I’ve long ago given up trying to understand the motivations of the ACLU but now its evil intents have so infiltrated America’s legal system that something really should be done about its radical nature.
“The [Santa Rosa] district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication. Otherwise, they face penalties of up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each:” http://bit.ly/6Bz6pR
What’s next on the ACLU agenda? Banning the use of sanitizers in school bathrooms since that may offend the dirty?
Hey, Babe! You wanna 14 K raise, a prestigious job, and a free trip, with moi?
That was the essence of Max Baucus’ (D. MT) . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1372)
Certain stories are very suggestive of significant alterations in the future of our great nation. These are just four of them. Read them and weep:
Turn in Your First Amendment Privileges Upon Entering these Premises!
All employees of the Santa Rosa (CA) School District have been put on notice. They are now required to tuck their freedoms of speech and religion in a pocket or purse when in attendance at “any school event,” including breaks, after school activities, or at on-campus private events.
Better yet, they should deposit their constitutional rights in the nearest trash receptacle, as per an order “crafted” for the school district by the American Civil Liberties Union.
You really have to hand it to the ACLU for its sticktoitiveness in undermining American values and liberties at every opportunity, that is, unless you’re a terrorist, a rapist, an anarchist or indulge in some other anti-social, anti-American behaviors.
Then the ACLU will defend you to its dying breath, which can’t come soon enough.
Santa Rosa “School officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone ‘communicating with a deity,’ such as ‘bowing the head’ or ‘folding hands.’
“School officials” must also prohibit “third-parties” from praying, which provision has forced some employees to seek refuge in closets: “Christian employees said the order has literally driven them to hide in closets to pray to avoid contempt charges.”
I’ve long ago given up trying to understand the motivations of the ACLU but now its evil intents have so infiltrated America’s legal system that something really should be done about its radical nature.
“The [Santa Rosa] district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication. Otherwise, they face penalties of up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each:” http://bit.ly/6Bz6pR
What’s next on the ACLU agenda? Banning the use of sanitizers in school bathrooms since that may offend the dirty?
Hey, Babe! You wanna 14 K raise, a prestigious job, and a free trip, with moi?
That was the essence of Max Baucus’ (D. MT) . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1372)
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Good, Bad, Ugly--and the Funny, Stupid, and Sad
The Good, Bad, Ugly–and the Funny, Stupid, and Sad
. . . The nouns “ethics” and “congress” rarely appear in the same sentence but Black Voices claims that legislators such as Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Bennie Thompson, et al. are being targeted not for any ethical/criminal lapses nor the content of their character but simply due to the color of their skin.
Another possibility offered for the unfairness of it all is that all 7 supported the “Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act” and repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing: http://bit.ly/1wNVEm.
The third possibility is that they’re all guilty as charged.
THE FUNNY: I’ve never seen ventriloquist, Jeff Dunham, . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1310)
. . . The nouns “ethics” and “congress” rarely appear in the same sentence but Black Voices claims that legislators such as Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Bennie Thompson, et al. are being targeted not for any ethical/criminal lapses nor the content of their character but simply due to the color of their skin.
Another possibility offered for the unfairness of it all is that all 7 supported the “Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act” and repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing: http://bit.ly/1wNVEm.
The third possibility is that they’re all guilty as charged.
THE FUNNY: I’ve never seen ventriloquist, Jeff Dunham, . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1310)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)