Exporting the Culture of Death

From CNA - and, of course, in keeping the Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s desire to reduce the number of “undesirable” births:

A leaked State Department cable shows the U.S. government has considered granting money to pro-abortion groups in Mexico. Critics warned that the grants would fund “radical” organizations seeking to change Mexican society and legalize abortion under the guise of combating violence against women.

The document is evidence of a “quiet yet seismic shift” in U.S. foreign aid priorities, said Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute vice president Terrence McKeegan. Large segments of foreign aid are being given to “activist groups whose main activity is to advocate for radical social changes in national laws,” he charged…

Seismic shift, indeed. In fact, of course, this is something liberals slavered after all during the Bush years. A fervent desire not just to undo Bush policy on not funding foreign abortions, but of actually using American taxpayer dollars to ensure that ever more children are murdered in the womb. Its just the liberal thing – they do have a religion, you know? Its just an anti-human religion, and abortion is their sacrament. Moloch lives.

Of course, not all liberals are quite that blood thirsty – President Obama is the father of two wonderful daughters. He can’t have thought the matter all the way through (and, indeed, may not even be fully aware of what is going on)…but devotion to pro-abortion policies is so ingrained upon the left that there is just no way for a liberal leader to really get away from it. And it will get worse all the time. These fanatics for death have already brought us abortion, euthanasia and infanticide…what is next is determining if non-terminally ill adults are worthy of continuing to live until they become expensive charges on the health care system. Just watch – they will take us there, if we let them. Once you start justifying murder, there is no bottom.

Just a Note to Our Liberals

A bit of proof that your leaders words against President Bush and Iraq were the merest political double talk – quoted over at Ricochet:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. — Barack Obama, December 20, 2007

Keep in mind that I back the concept of assisting in the removal of Gaddafi – unfortunately, we’ve yet to have a statement from the President of what our actual goal in Libya is. But if Obama is going for a liberation of Libya, then I’m behind that 100%.

But what of you liberals? Where is the threat to the United States in the Libyan regime? Explain yourself – or go in to sustained opposition to Obama.

President's Statement on Libya

Via NRO’s The Corner:

Good afternoon, everybody. Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun.

In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people. That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message, and it brings together many of our European and Arab partners.

This is not an outcome that the United States or any of our partners sought. Even yesterday, the international community offered Muammar Qaddafi the opportunity to pursue an immediate cease-fire, one that stopped the violence against civilians and the advances of Qaddafi’s forces. But despite the hollow words of his government, he has ignored that opportunity. His attacks on his own people have continued. His forces have been on the move. And the danger faced by the people of Libya has grown.

I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

So we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.

As a part of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners. And as I said yesterday, we will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have great confidence in the men and women of our military who will carry out this mission. They carry with them the respect of a grateful nation.

I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition that includes close allies and partners who are prepared to meet their responsibility to protect the people of Libya and uphold the mandate of the international community.

I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

Thank you very much. (emphasis added)

So, no troops on the ground, a bit of bombing and support of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone. Sorry, but this seems tailor made to create a stale mate. Without energetic efforts to make the rebels stronger so that they may achieve victory we will be getting nowhere.

Military Action Against Libya May Not Have Been Necessary

I point you to a story from December of 2003, a little over a week after Saddam Hussein was captured…

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in an exclusive interview with CNN, acknowledged Monday that the war in Iraq may have played a role in his decision to dismantle his country’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

This story should remind everyone why it is important that we have strong, decisive leaders in the White House. If we had one now, military action against Libya today probably would not have been necessary. This story reminds us that foreign leaders may not like us, but will respect strength. Obama’s weakness ultimately let this situation with Libya get to this point. He dropped the ball. Things were made worse by Obama waiting for action against Libya to “pass the global test” — as John Kerry once put it — and that just made us look weaker. The President of the United States isn’t just the leader of the country, he is supposed to be a world leader. Obama has proven time and time again that he lacks the ability to stand amongst giants on the world stage.

Talk is cheap, but leadership is priceless. Sadly, it will take a long time to restore the respect this country once had when we showed strength on the world stage.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: and the kook left is already out there protesting the US action. Now, liberals, where is the declaration of war which you insist must happen before any US military action? Shouldn’t you now get out there and demonstrate against Obama’s illegal war for oil?

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Ok, so this is the War to Protect Civilians. Does this mean we’re protecting all of the civilians of Libya, or just rebel civilians? Do we care at all about the civilians still suffering under Gaddafi’s rule? What is the purpose of our action? Are we trying to get rid of Gaddafi? Just prevent his victory? Are we hoping for a negotiated settlement between Gaddafi and the rebels? Suppose Gaddafi adheres to no-fly (and he probably will by fact of his pilots refusing to go in to the air) but still drives on over land? Maybe not at Benghazi where attention is focused but round about to hit the rebels at Tobruk?

Inquiring minds want to know…but the basic we have here is that there is no policy, there is an attitude. Something had to be done, and so something has been done…but there is no direction from the President of what we hope to accomplish.

UPDATE III, by Mark Noonan: Early reports are that 110 cruise missiles have been fired. That is the sort of softening up you’d do if you planned on invading…are we going to send in the Marines? If that is the case, then that would be a good thing…ensures an anti-Gaddafi victory…but leaves open what sort of post-Gaddafi regime we want and what we’re willing to do to ensure it happens. And if we’re not going to send in troops, then why take a sledge hammer to a flea?

US to Continue Supporting Corrupt, Inhuman Dictatorships

I caught Secretary of State Clinton’s statement just a bit ago and while I haven’t come across a transcript of it, the most telling part of it was where the Secretary of State asserted that the United States finds the recent Saudi intervention in Bahrain to suppress dissent acceptable. Clinton couched it in terms of the Bahraini government having the right to “call in” forces from the Gulf Cooperation Council, but the naked fact is that the United States has disinterested itself in the fate of Gulf movements aimed at change of government.

This seems to have been the price extracted for Arab support of the no-fly operation in Libya – an operation, it must be noted, which does not have any stated goal other than a nebulous “protect civilians”. Essentially, we have indicated that while we’re ok if the Libyan rebels, under the cover of no-fly, manage to oust Gaddafi…but we won’t do anything to advance that goal, nor will we offer any support to any other Arab/Moslem people who desire a radical change in government. We want stability.

Its the old, old game with them – what is there today must be perpetuated in to the future so that US policy is never called upon to change. If people have to suffer under brutal and corrupt dictatorships then that is the price they’ll have to pay because foreign policy “experts” figure that any actual armed conflict is worse than any state of peace, even if it is the peace of the grave (and, of course, as long as the shooting goes on behind prison walls; Gaddafi’s crime in State Department eyes is that he started massacring his people in public).

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are just doing as they are told – but it is in conformity with their basic world view. This world view asserts that stability is worth any price, that the UN (which, by the way, had Libya on its human rights panel) is necessary for any action, that the weakest and most corrupt member must call the tune, that American power is to be subservient to the goals of non-Western interests in general, and non-American interests in particular.

I do hope that under the no-fly regime that the Libyan people manage to oust their particular tyrant and that the successor regime is in some respects civilized (a highly doubtful prospect, but anything is possible). But I think this is the end of rebellion, for now. Further explosions are bound to happen as the corrupt regimes of the Moslem world continue…but for this day,and for this time, it looks like the whole world is gathering together to sustain the brutes currently in power.

Gallup: Unemployment at 10.2%

From Gallup:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was at 10.2% in mid-March — essentially the same as the 10.3% at the end of February but higher than the 10.0% of mid-February and the 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is about the same today as the 10.3% rate Gallup found in mid-March a year ago.

Given the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been playing around with the employment numbers (and always in a way that helps Obama and his Bankster buddies….hmmmmm….), we should probably look towards Gallup to get a real idea of where unemployment is. And this probably does understate it given that if labor force participation over at the BLS was at the 10 year average we’d be at nearly 12% unemployment right now (but we can’t have that sort of official number…it would harm the “we’re recovering” meme).

Bottom line – the “recovery” has been anything but, and worse is probably coming.

A Bogus Poll to Advance Gay Marriage

ABC has a new poll alleging majority support for gay marriage:

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post…

Allahpundit, usually a lot more perceptive on this sort of thing, has entirely fallen for it. I can only imagine it is because of Allahpundit’s libertarian bent – wanting something to be true, he’s allowed himself to be suckered by the MSM because the MSM has produced something which confirms a pre-conceived notion. That is always very dangerous – especially for anyone of conservative or libertarian positions. Remember, the MSM is always trying to advance the liberal agenda – they are lying through their teeth, day after day, in order to make Obama look good, convince people that unions care about workers, that environmentalists are dispassionate advocates for scientific truth, etc, etc, etc. So, why would anyone right of center seize upon an MSM poll as the last revelation on an issue?

While truth is in there – they can’t announce that the Moon is made of green cheese, as it were – MSM reports have to be sifted with care. And Allahpundit should have noticed this bit from the report:

…Support is up by a striking 23 points among white Catholics, often a swing group and one that’s been ready, in many cases, to disregard church positions on political or social issues…

Get the heck out of here. I mean, come on. This is just stupid. The Catholics who were supporting gay marriage in previous polls were doing so because of complete ignorance of Church teaching, or because they were, at best, nominal Catholics. The nominal Catholics are still there, of course, but there is no indication that large number of heretofor devout Catholics have decided to abandon their faith – and that would be the only way to account for such a large upsurge in Catholic support. And that is not all the stupidity of this bogus poll – there is in the poll the claim that Evangelical Protestants have seen a double-digit growth in support for gay marriage. Can someone give me an event over the past two years which would convince very large numbers of staunch opponents to change their views? Repeal of DADT? No, sorry – that isn’t anything; I’ve supported repeal of DADT while I continue to oppose gay marriage. Anyone got anything at all which can account for such a paradigm shift?

The real test of this, of course, would be to put it to a vote. Get it on the ballot in all 50 States for 2012, and see what comes up. That, of course, the pro-gay marriage people will never do, because they know they’d lose…and perhaps lose in all 50 States (we on our side don’t need to do this – we’ve done it dozens of times and won every time). No liberal leader out there will hazard anything at the ballot box – more than likely what we’ll see is efforts in Congress to weaken or repeal DOMA and further efforts to impose gay marriage via judicial fiat. Meanwhile, RINOs and Libertarians will keep pointing to this poll as justification for the right remaining silent as the left destroys marriage piece by piece.

This is a life and death matter, good people. If gay marriage ever becomes a legal reality, then we are doomed as a people. Marriage and family have already been terribly weakened by events of the past 150 years – just a bit more and family formation will collapse and we’ll start falling below replacement level in population. That is already happening in Europe – and the trend has accelerated since Europe made various accommodations with gay marriage. If you admit this exception – a man marrying a man – then you will eventually be forced to make the exception the rule. You will not be able to argue that a man shan’t marry two women – or a dozen. That a brother may not marry a sister. That a father may not marry a daughter. Do this, and there will be no unique thing called marriage…it will be a mish mash, entirely devoid of moral importance, and so it will be done less and less…until our civilization dies entirely.

Now, we Christians will be quite serene through this. We know that the Church cannot die…and no matter how depraved our society becomes, a sufficient number of us will come through all perils and emerge on the other side and, in time, start to rebuild a Christian civilization. It is you, secular liberals, RINOs and Libertarians, to whom the warning is given. You think you can survive – you think, that is, that the Christian civilization you live in and enjoy can survive once you’ve destroyed the last vestiges of Christianity within it. Well, you can’t – you do that, then what you have is destroyed…and destroyed in a quite frightful cataclysm.

Laugh at it. Ridicule it. Its all just myth. We’re just fools addressing prayers to an empty sky. You can do all that, if you like. Or you can pay heed to wisdom – and even if you refuse to believe what we believe, understand that what you live in was made by us, and cannot survive if there aren’t sufficient numbers of us, and with our morality sufficiently honored in law and custom.

Can We Get a Little Weaker on Libya?

You betcha! Headline from Reuters:

U.S. to deploy more ships to support Libya planning (emphasis added)

Planning? Planning!?!?! For goodness sake, Libya’s military is, at best, fourth rate. We’re not talking about taking on an air force with any ability to sustain active hostilities. Sure, they can bomb open towns unopposed…but it seems that Libya’s pilots and ground crews are foreign mercenaries who won’t want to tangle with a real air force; additionally, it appears that most of Libya’s most modern planes (and they aren’t all that modern) are not in flying condition. We’re not talking about taking on the Luftwaffe or something comparable to a mission against Hanoi in 1970…we’re talking about policing the skies above Libya to give the rebels a breather and allow Gaddafi’s loyalists to draw the proper conclusions about his long-term survivability. This should be able to be done right now – not a few days from now.

And a few days from now it will be – if you look in to the article we’re talking about deploying the USS Bataan on March 23rd…five days from now. This is just playing around…meanwhile, latest reports are that Gaddafi’s forces are continuing offensive operations…

Weak. Pathetic.

Harry Reid: The Culture of Death Will Remain Fully Funded

From Life News:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said today that Republicans who favor cutting taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business need to give up their quest because the Senate will not agree to it…

What he really means is that he will not agree to it – Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, will ensure that it doesn’t come up for a vote…because he knows that if it does, it’ll pass easily. Other than dyed-in-the-wool liberals and a couple RINOs, no one in the Senate is really going to go to the mat to maintain Planned Parenthood’s funding. The American people don’t support abortion funding, the nation is broke and Planned Parenthood has been revealed as an utterly corrupt organization…cutting them off would be popular…but the Culture of Death simply owns the Democrat party leadership, and Harry is now doing his Master’s bidding.

Obama Elementary to Close

From the Asbury Park Press:

The century-old Bangs Avenue School — renamed for President Barack Obama just a year ago — will be closed as a neighborhood school this summer, largely because of a steep slide in the district’s total enrollment the past decade.

Bruce N. Rodman, the state-appointed monitor who oversees the district’s finances, Thursday ordered that elementary students be reassigned to the city’s two other elementary schools as of July 1…

What a gigantic absurdity – naming a school after a living, serving President! And when they named it, did they not have a clue, at all, that perhaps enrollment didn’t even justify it? How incompetent a sycophant do you have to be to name something doomed after your Dear Leader? But, it gets even more silly:

…The district plans to keep the Obama name as it uses the school building in a different way.

At the same time, the school district is applying for federal school improvement grants that could bring $2 million a year for three years to a distressed building. The funds were being sought for the Obama, middle and high schools.

They’ve named not just one but three schools after the President. For goodness sake, are we living in Stalin’s Cult of Personality? Just how many Obama schools are out there? Someone needs to drag an arts grant through liberal neighborhoods to see what turns up! Additionally, it is just so liberal that they are looking for federal grants – grants, that is, from a bankrupt government – in order to spruce up their other two efforts at being lickspittles.

You begin to wonder – do these people in any way, shape or form even feel American? Americans don’t do this sort of nonsense. We don’t name schools after men who are still in office…men who may be tossed out on their ear at the next election. I know the Europeans gave him a Nobel without Obama actually accomplishing anything, but I didn’t think that anyone who shares my citizenship would be that idiotic.