blog Time Hath Found Us: June 2005

June 25, 2005

Historical Prospectives on "Choice" in America

Brian Melton at ChronWatch has written another compelling piece comparing today's "Pro-Choice" abortion tactics to those of the American pre-civil war slave holding states. The piece is entitled: "The Fugitive ‘Fetus’ Act: Some Historical Perspectives on a Recent Abortion Controversy."

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
—Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

In the past few months, a “new” issue appeared on the American stage that made Hegel’s words echo through time. I put the word “new” in quotes, because, as Solomon once observed, “there is nothing new under the sun.” The idea of the federal government forcing someone, like a Pro-life pharmacist, to violate even their most cherished religious beliefs for the convenience and profit of others bears a frightening resemblance to something that occurred in the decade leading up to the Civil War. That instance played a significant role in boosting the strength of the abolitionist movement, and therefore helped set the country on the road to war. I hope that we will somehow prove Hegel wrong and actually learn from our own mistakes this time.

I’m assuming that most of my readers who are even vaguely aware of the continuing abortion debate will understand what has been going on. Now that the FDA has approved various and sundry “morning after” pills, the Pro-Death Movement has reveled in the fact that abortion is more of a form of contraception than ever. Women can now walk down to the local pharmacy, pick up a few pills to pop, and kill an inconvenient child without the need for a messy trip to a clinic. But there is one problem: There are Pro-Life pharmacists whose conscience won’t let them dispense the pills. This has proven quite a cause for consternation, as the conduct of this woman shows, and the biased reporting in the article about her further demonstrates.
[...]
The hypocrisy cannot be clearer. Just like the slaveholders, abortionists believe that everyone should enjoy equal rights, but the right to an abortion is somehow more equal than the right of a pro-life pharmacist to abstain. A Christian must remove even a small cross at work for fear of offending someone else, but an abortionist does not have to wait even an hour or two when requesting a drug that an offended Christian earnestly and honestly believes will be used to commit murder.

Read the rest of "The Fugitive ‘Fetus’ Act: Some Historical Perspectives on a Recent Abortion Controversy."

Cross posted from Truth and Action

June 22, 2005

The ALA hearts Latin American Communist Dictators

The good ol' American Library Association (ALA). Staunch defenders of liberty and freedom but only if you are an ACLU operative out to legalize porn or if you happen to be a Latin American Dictator.

The ALA is sponsoring Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's apologist Eva Golinger to speak at the 2005 ALA Annual Conference on June 25th. The ALA press release states:

CHICAGO - Author and attorney Eva Golinger will speak about U.S. attempts to remove Venezuela's democratically elected President Hugo Chavez from power, Saturday, June 25, at the American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference in Chicago.

Golinger will speak at the program "Destabilization, Disinformation, and Libraries," sponsored by the Social Responsibilities Round Table of ALA and by the Progressive Librarians Guild. The program also will feature a presentation on libraries under the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile; and librarian Ann Sparanese will discuss what librarians can do about U.S. destabilization and disinformation programs.

And you thought librarians had the best interests of children at heart. Here is what the pro-Venezuelan Organization VCRISIS has to say about Eva Golinger:

It never ceases to amaze me the ability of certain people to keep duping others on themes of which they have no clue about. Such is the case of the 'darling of the revolution' Eva Golinger that is. Lately, camarada Golinger has been given royal treatment by the Chavez regime in Venezuela, put in five-star hotels, flown in business class and interviewed ad nauseam in the state media channel as 'expert in US destabilization techniques and vote rigging'.

But, you may say, the ALA really, really cares about the free flow of information in libraries everywhere. Apparently they don't care that much about the libraries of the other darling of the left dictator, Cuba's Castro. The Washington Examiner explains:

Librarians attending the American Library Association's conference in Chicago this week will hear a speech from that great man of letters Henry Winkler (a.k.a. "The Fonz"). But a bigger story involves who won't be appearing at the podium: Ramon Coles and Berta Mexidor, the co-founders of Cuba's independent library movement.
[...]
Two years ago, Cuban strongman Fidel Castro jailed 75 dissidents in a brutal clampdown. Fourteen of them were librarians, members of a movement that collects books, newspapers and periodicals and loans them to interested readers. In Castro's island paradise, this is a crime.
[...]
Would the ALA call on Castro to free the jailed librarians? No. The best it could muster was an expression of "deep concern over the arrest and long prison terms of political dissidents." It noted that some were private librarians, but stopped short of insisting on their release. It urged the Cuban regime to respect "basic human rights" and "eliminate obstacles" to the free flow of information.

Curiously, the ALA report also took a dig at the U.S. embargo because it "restricts access to information in Cuba." It likewise zinged the U.S. travel ban for hampering "professional exchanges" between the two countries. In its fit of moral equivalence, the ALA blamed both governments "the one in Washington and the one in Havana" for the "political climate" that led to the arrests.

So, in addition to protecting the privacy of terrorists, perverts and pornographers the ALA has a soft spot for communist dictators. Ever vigilant, ever loony.

Hat Tip: The American Thinker

June 19, 2005

What Part of Abstinence Doesn't this Report Understand?

The attack by anti-moral nitwits on abstinence only sex education continues. According to an article published on MedicalNewsToday.com, a report written by Scott Frank, director of Case Western Reserve University's division of public health, attacks Ohio's abstinence-only programs for possibly containing misleading information.

Some of the sins of the Ohio programs include:

...some of the state's abstinence-only programs, which are offered in 85 of the state's 88 counties, confuse religion and science, perpetuate sexist stereotypes, do not provide guidance for gay adolescents and are not taught by trained health educators.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure where Mr. Frank is coming from. Here are more shocking misrepresentations and inaccuracies:

- Exaggerate the failure rates of condoms and do not include information on how to use a condom properly;

- Blame contraceptives for poor mental health among young people and warn that sexual activity outside of marriage can have damaging psychological effects;

- Suggest that hormonal contraceptives can increase a girl's chances of infertility later in life;

- Urge teens to "follow God's plan for purity" and remain abstinent until marriage;

- Contain inaccurate or misleading information about the transmission of STDs, including saying that HIV can be transmitted through tears and open-mouth kissing;

- Inaccurately describe HIV as a virus that remains undetected for six months to 10 years, when most antibodies are detectable within two to eight weeks following exposure.

I won't waste time stating the obvious except to draw your attention to: "Exaggerate the failure rates of condoms and do not include information on how to use a condom properly." This silly argument has always floored me. Even if condoms were 99% reliable, the one time in a hundred the condom breaks can be a death sentence.

It is interesting that if "Urge teens to 'follow God's plan for purity' and remain abstinent until marriage" were followed, the kids would not have to worry at all about all of the other stuff. But that would require self discipline and commitment, something the likes of Mr. Frank can't possibly condone.

June 16, 2005

ACLU Threatens the State of Utah to Protect Pornographers

Note: I've been very busy setting up the new Truth and Action blog, web site, forums and wiki. Look for good things to come from the contributors to Truth and Action.

This post has been bumped to the top for this week's Stop The ACLU Blogburst. Originally written on June 2, 2005 it fits this week's topic of The ACLU's Policy To Legalize The Distribution And Possession Of Child Pornography.

A Utah bill which creates an internet porn site registry was signed into law on March 22 of this year. Even before the bill was passed, "civil libertarians" were whining about "possible" first amendment abuses the bill "might" encourage.

True to form, the ACLU is following through with its threats. The Salt Lake Tribune has posted an article explaining a "coalition of attorneys'" and the ACLU's twisted logic.

Word of the impending court fight has reached Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who in response has halted efforts to implement the new law aimed at protecting children from Internet pornography.

"There will be a lawsuit," Shurtleff said. "The ACLU is the one that contacted me and let me know."

To add insult to injury, the ACLU is already in the de facto position of overriding elected legislatures by simply threatening lawsuits!

The law requires that Utah companies that create and maintain pornographic web sites label the content as harmful to minors. Failure to comply could result in criminal prosecution. That, apparently, is too harsh on the ACLU's bosom buddies in the vile pornography racket.

Lawyers for the Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology warned lawmakers before House Bill 260 came up for a vote.

The center's attorney, John Morris, is now drafting the suit with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah and New York City Attorney Michael Bamberger, who has previously represented Penthouse, Playboy and other publishers in similar suits.

Follow the money, there is big money in pornography, and you'll invariably find the ACLU $ucking at the teat of exploitation.

Another good read is an ObscenityCrimes.org interview with the Pew Internet and American Life Project's Deborah Fallows. The piece is titled: "There is a special place in Hell for pornographic spam. I believe that same special place is waiting for the degenerates of the ACLU.

 

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst! If you would like to join, it is very simple.

Go to our new portal at Protest The ACLU , click where it says "sign up now", and fill out a simple form. This will enable us to send you a weekly newsletter with information, and keep your email private. Current members who have not registered, please do so. There are additional advantages and features that will be available for you there...you can opt to use them, or not. Thank you!

Headless and Heartless in America

The release of Terri Schindler's autopsy report has caused the momentary public re-emergence of a disturbing segment of our society. These are people who offer opinions about the court ordered execution of Terri Schindler based not on the actual facts of Terri's situation, but on their own relativistic world view. A world view which denies the existence of moral absolutes and relies on an individual's own interpretation of the world based on feelings, moods, pop-culture, or what was eaten for breakfast on a particular day. It is a world view of which we who do not subscribe should be wary. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is right. Nothing is wrong except the heresy of non-conformity to the collective.

Yesterday (June 15, 2005) BlogsForTerri posted several articles and commentaries about the autopsy results. As expected, the usual cadre of self proclaimed libertarians, members of the Liberal Collective, necromancers and necrophiliacs let their opinions be known. As expected their rantings had little to do with reality and everything to do with rationalizing the state sanctioned (yes, the judiciary is a part of the government) disposal of a politically powerless innocent citizen.

Reasons for endorsing the acts of king George Greer ran the gamut from the ever popular who-would-want-to-live-like-that to the ever popular who-would-want-to-live-like-that argument with the occasional brilliant the government should not be involved gambit. There is an adage which says "he who can destroy a thing controls the thing." The last I saw, the government (the judiciary) destroyed Terri Schindler with impunity.

What can be done to reason with the secular relativists? To quote William F. Vallicella from his post: Leftists and Civility at the excellent philosophy blog Right Reason, "I would have to possess the longevity of a Methuselah, the energy of a Hercules, and the dogged persistence of a Sisyphus – and I still would not succeed."

Cross posted from: Truth and Action

June 12, 2005

The Lack of Private Investment in Embryonic Stem Cell Research

"Follow the money." It is an old saying but, in the case of the funding of embryonic stem cell research, it is apt. Private investors have, so far, avoided investing in embryonic stem cell research. Why is this? Isn't the venture capital community known for recognizing high payoff opportunities even in risky early stage companies? After all, if the hype of embryonic stem cells can deliver a small fraction of what is claimed, there are untold billions of dollars to be made.

The answer is, of course, that private sector investment firms are held accountable for where they put their clients' funds. To date, even with all of the miraculous claims surrounding the promise of embryonic stem cells, there is not much hope of investments actually reaping even modest returns. The real return is in adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells.

There is still money to be made in embryonic stem cells. It can be made by pulling political strings and getting rich Uncle Sam to pay the bills. Lobbying organizations such as the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research have turned up the heat on legislators to fund their new "scientific entitlement" program.

Ed Feulner at the Washington Times has written an excellent piece entitled "Tough Cell" where he examines the government's role in funding embryonic stem cell research.

In real life, money follows results. When an inventor creates a useful product, investors find him, market the product and sell it. There's no need for the federal government to get involved.

In fact, federal involvement usually means an approach has failed. Farmers demand subsidies, for example, when they can no longer profitably sell their crops. And some manufacturers, faced with less expensive products from overseas, demand protective tariffs.

This principle helps illuminate the ongoing debate over federal funding for embryonic stem cells to treat and cure disease...

Following the money, or lack thereof, will reveal much.

Cross posted from Truth And Action.

June 05, 2005

Sunday Special: A Workable Constitution

Many of us have been fascinated this week by the French and Dutch voters' rejection of the proposed EU constitution. If such voting results were seen in the United States, it would be called an overwhelming mandate - in reverse. Much has been written about the document and the reasons it failed so miserably in France and Holland, not to mention the UK's abandonment of their own planned referendum.

Of all of the news and punditry I've read over the past week, my favorite quotable lines come from Jonah Goldberg article published at National Review Online. In describing the 400+ page behemoth Goldberg writes: "Add the fact that the document itself is impenetrable and you can hardly blame voters for erring on the side of caution. You don't roll the dice when you might potentially be voting away your sovereignty and lifestyle. For the record, though, the constitution is no free-market tract -- if Adam Smith were alive, he'd spontaneously burst into flames if he read it."

Contrast the incomprehensible EU constitution with that of the United States. The difference is clear. The underlying philosophies of the two documents couldn't be more opposite. The EU constitution specifies the rights granted to the people by the state. The US Constitution specifies the rights granted the state by the people.

Opening words of the preambles of the EU constitution and the US Constitution:
Europa: A Constitution for Europe
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, THE PRESIDENT OF MALTA, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND...

----------

The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people...

This week's Sunday Special is a listing of the 1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution commonly known as The Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yet, even with such clear and concise wording, there are those who would twist and stretch the document to fit their own world views to an extent which would cause the original framers to "spontaneously burst into flames."

June 04, 2005

Scott Thomas: Guardianship Hearing Postponed

Scott Thomas, is the 34 year old Jacksonville, Florida man who sustained brain damage in his home under suspicious circumstances in September of 2004 and has been the subject of a guardianship battle between his mother and estranged wife. In October, just a few weeks after Scott's "accident", his wife Eliza tried to have him admitted to a hospice and have is feeding tube removed. After a hearing, where it was learned that the state was conducting a criminal investigation of the circumstances surrounding his injury, Scott's mother, Pamela Patton, was granted temporary guardianship for 6 months.

A new guardianship hearing which was scheduled to take place on June 3rd was postponed until June 8th because Scott's mother has hired a new attorney.

An article published in The Empire Journal, details the circumstances surrounding Scott's plight.

According to his family, Scott’s wife says that he sustained his injuries after he fell backwards in their kitchen, tripping over a dog. Doctors for the incapacitated man say that his injuries aren’t consistent with such a fall.

No one else was at home at the time of Scott’s fall. Although his wife maintains that she was in another room at the time of the fall, she also claims to have knowledge of how Scott fell.

His mother says that her son has indicated on a videotape given to police that his wife is allegedly responsible for his injuries, indicating that she allegedly intentionally struck him in the head. He has indicated that he does not wish to see her and she had not been visiting him at the rehab center.
[...]
Scott is now recovering at the home of his mother and continues to undergo therapy both at home and in outside therapy including sessions in a hyperbaric chamber. He is expected to meet with Dr. William Hammesfahr, a noted neurologist of Clearwater, next week to explore further options for treatment.
[...]
His mother says that although her son has spoken only three words since September, that he does communicate using hand signals and with his eyebrows and that he forms words with his mouth. She relates one instance when her son, who she says is somewhat claustrophobic, was to be placed in a hyperbaric chamber, he looked at her and twice said, “Mom, I want out”.
[...]
She said Scott is cognizant and the doctors have tested him, receiving correct responses about where he lives, where he went to school and other information. They have devised trick questions and phrased the questions to rule out that his responses are not simply involuntary responses.

Read more...

Cross Posted from: Truth and Action

June 02, 2005

T. Jefferson on the Rejection of the EU Constitution

The recent rejection of the proposed EU constitution by the Dutch and French as well as the shelving of the referendum by the UK brings to mind something Jefferson wrote in 1787 about the European ruling class. Thomas Jefferson's observation is as valid today as it was over 200 years ago.

"...the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army.…European gov’ts have divided their nations into wolves and sheep. …Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. …If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and congress and Assemblies, Judges and governors, shall all become wolves."
Source.

June 01, 2005

Assisted Suicide Bill in Calif. Legislature

The flying monkeys of the California state legislature are at it again. Like a scene from The Wizard of Oz, those mindless minions of political correctness are bent on expediting the death of the hopeless and the helpless. All is not lost, however, disability rights groups are rallying to 'liquidate' the legislation.

In an article published at Lifenews.com, Steven Ertelt writes:

Disability rights groups in California have come out against legislation that would make the state only the second in the nation to legalize assisted suicide. They say the measure would encourage disabled people to kill themselves rather than seeking helpful medical care of pain management.

Cheryl Bergan, a public policy analyst with the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, said she thinks Assembly Bill 654 is severely flawed.

"The problem is you can't make mistakes," she told the Record-Bee newspaper. "If someone dies, you can't go back and say, 'Let's fix that.'"

The bill includes some "safeguards"

Under the measure, two doctors much [sic] agree that the patient has six months or less to live, that the patient is competent to make the decision, and both physicians must submit reports to the state health department.

The patient must make two oral requests to [be] allowed to kill himself and one written one.

Yup, those are sure some iron-clad safeguards. Let's see just how difficult it could be to 'get helped along' in California.

1. "two doctors must agree that the patient has six months or less to live." -- Not terribly difficult to find two doctors to agree on that, especially from two doctors working in a hospice. I am sure that many of you reading this post have been told or know someone who has been told they have a limited time to live only to have the prediction turn out to be very wrong.

2. "the patient is competent to make the decision." -- It seems that shouldn't be much of a problem. In fact, my bet is that since it is so difficult to certify that someone is competent to decide to want to be hydrated and fed, certifying that one wants to die should be a snap.

3. "both physicians must submit reports to the state health department." -- Great! Get the bureaucracy involved. There is plenty of accountability and compassion there. There would be no problem getting the kill order rubber-stamped.

4. My personal favorite: "The patient must make two oral requests to be allowed to kill himself and one written one" -- That translates to Michael Schiavo swearing twice that Terri said she wanted to die followed up with a PhotoShop generated document. Easy!

The point of my flippancy is just to emphasize how utterly ridiculous this bill is. It would be easier to get killed in a California hospital that it would be to get healed.

"The problem is you can't make mistakes. If someone dies, you can't go back and say, 'Let's fix that.'"



ACTION: Contact Governor Schwarzenegger and urge opposition to assisted suicide.
State Capitol Bldg.
Sacramento, CA 95814
phone: 916-445-284
fax: 916-445-4633
email: governor@governor.ca.gov

Related web sites:
California Pro-Life Council - http://www.californiaprolife.org
Euthanasia.Com - http://www.euthanasia.com
International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force - http://www.iaetf.org
Citizens United Against Euthanasia (CURE) - http://mysite.verizon.net/cureltd/index.html

Cross Posted at: Truth And Action