The Silent Spring: Feminism – Planned Parenthood – The Pill

Humanae Vitae could be called, “Truth and Consequences.”  With prophetic clarity, Pope Paul VI, in his Encyclical Letter on the Regulation of Birth, delineated the changes that would overtake society with the  artificial control of birth.

In 2008 the German Federal Statistics Office’s vice-president,Walter Rademacher, was quoted by Agence France-Presse saying: “The fall in the population (of Germany) can no longer be stopped.” Life Site News reported “The population losses faced by Germany reflect a trend occurring across Europe–The European Union’s statistics agency Eurostat has predicted an overall drop in Europe’s population of 7 million people by 2050.

The Population Reference Bureau’s 2008 World Population data sheet and its summary report offer detailed information about country, regional, and global population patterns.”Nearly all of world population growth is now concentrated in the world’s poorer countries,” said Bill Butz, PRB’s president. “Even the small amount of overall growth in the wealthier nations will largely result from immigration.”

Some points of interest: NoSpeedBumps writes :

… Germany has one of the largest populations of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, with a Muslim community of over 3 million. That trend is expected to continue, leading some demographic trend-watchers to warn that the country is well on the way to becoming a Muslim state by 2050, Deutsche Welle reported.

The Brussels Journal reported last month that one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families by 2025. There are an estimated 50 million Muslims living in Europe today–that number is expected to double over the next twenty years.

With the fanaticism of religious zealots, Feminism and Planned Parenthood, continue to preach their doctrines that would set mankind free to just “be” without the hindrance of Faith, God, or social pressure.  Am I paranoid wondering how free or tolerated, non-muslims will be in a world with the new demographics of 2050. Even One World enthusiasts might wonder, can the nations hold their own, their own identity or posterity and even faith?

The next generation faces many decisions and morality matters.  Truth and consequences oblige even those who are disinterested, too busy to care, or otherwise engaged in life pursuits.

Outing Obama – Courting a Liberal

Making his preferences known, Obama will be outed, as he reveals his Supreme Court nominee.  It will be hard to mask a hard to the left choice as representative, post-partisan or moderate.  His claims to the contrary will matter less and less as moderates loving Obama have to swallow their pride and admit that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Ed Morrissey sees this nomination as a big head ache for Obama, changing the make-up of the Court little, but obliging Obama to satisfy demands in an open air arena.

He will face many competing pressures in selecting a replacement.  Supreme Court picks are high-profile affairs, and this will test Obama far more than his previous appointments — many of which have been disasters, like Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and the rest of the tax-evaders and lobbyists he’s picked.  Hispanics will want a representative voice on the court, and women will want to gain back the second seat that they lost with Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement.  Blacks might expect Obama to appoint another African-American.  Meanwhile, in the Senate, Obama will be expected by some to play the bitter partisan game that has existed ever since Ted Kennedy kneecapped Robert Bork, and expected by others to pick someone in the middle ground to end those games. The biggest tension will come from the far-Left activists of Obama’s party.  They’re losing a stalwart.  They can’t afford to have Souter replaced by a middle-ground justice who may not vote as reliably liberal as Souter.  In fact, that will be Obama’s problem for all of the likely retirements on the Court — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.

Michelle Malkins gives the down and dirty on likely nominees :

Seuter to Retire

NPR says it’s out of the bag.  Justice Souter will retire.  President Obama will have his chance to change things once again.  Hopefully he’ll be more circumspect in his appointment.  Souter was appointed by Bush but proved to be something of a surprise with liberal leanings.

Michelle Malkin writes, “Now, we’ll get an out liberal as opposed to a stealth one.”

What’s next?  Will Obama shape the court in his image?

Pray,pray,pray! Crying come naturally!

Allah simply groans.

Glenn Reynolds points us here for an interesting take by Legal Insurrection highlighting Prof. Michael Dorf and rewritten 2 days before the retirement announcement:

Does Arlen Specter’s defection from R to D strengthen the President’s hand in Congress? Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican. Now what?

High Ground – High Rhetoric – Short Memory

In his third press conference on his 100th day in office,  President Obama stood by his conviction that torture is wrong, that water-boarding is wrong. Basically he said it was wrong making the argument that we don’t need it.  Obama claims the high ground in protecting sworn enemies of this country from harsh procedures. “It corrodes the character of a country.” Here is the text of exchange:

OBAMA: Jake? Where’s Jake? There he is.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?

OBAMA: What I’ve said ? and I will repeat ? is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don’t think that’s just my opinion; that’s the opinion of many who’ve examined the topic. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, “We don’t torture,” when the entire British ? all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood ? you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s ? what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

However, this same man, President Obama, supports, allows and has helped restore and implement legislation that allows the arms and legs to be severed from the bodies of  pre-born infants not only in this country but around the world. (Harsh words, harsh procedures! Saline abortions are worse than corrosive, they are caustic, for the infant.)

The pre-born children of this Nation are our future citizens.  Every fragment of their being was conceived and formed while their mothers breathed the air of American freedom and protection. Obama has in the past stood side by side with those who sanction collapsing the skulls of fully formed infants making sure they never draw their first breath.

The key to his position may be one of pragmatism rather than morality.  Has he forgotten that he indicated that the destruction of his own future grandchildren was preferable to him rather than for his own daughters to bear his grandchild in an untimely manner;  His words on the subject, “if they make a mistake. I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This is part of what Obama calls teaching “morals and values to make good decisions.” This President hasn’t a moral leg to stand on.

Amy Welborn here points to of OSV who wrote in Corroding the Character of Our Nation:

“We have seen the tragic results of what happens when one life is considered less important than another. It’s unfortunate that the president can recognize that fact when it comes to terror suspects and prisoners of war but not when it comes to his own countrymen still in the womb. President Obama said in his press conference last night that he believes that the abortion decision is best left in the hands of women, who he believes struggle with what they choose to do. Well, we would hope that women struggle with the decision to end a child’s life, but the reality is that with each passing year people seem to become more and more desensitized to the plight of the unborn. Why? For the exact reasons the president stated: Over time, bad but easy choices corrode what’s best in a people.”

The 100 Day Buzz on Obama

100 Days and the buck stops here.   Obama soars to new heights as a community organizer with a flair for the dramatic and idiotic.  Does he even know about 9/11?

Nice Deb has the buzz on the fiasco.  Ace of Spades HQ captures the drama here and Allah Pundit here. Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin here writes:

‘I feel the need, the need to freak out New Yorkers!’ — Update: Wouldn’t ‘Photoshop’ have been cheaper?

Fausta see its real value!

Nice Deb photo credit

Nice Deb photo credit

Obama’s First 100 Days Counter to Glendon’s Life Work

Elizabeth Lev, daughter of Mary Ann Glendon has responded to this written by Kaitlyn Riely at Politics Daily.  Riely,speaking of Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, says:

“But Glendon has been trained in diplomacy. Shouldn’t being in the same place and engaging someone of an opposing view be right up her alley? Wouldn’t the better decision be to use her platform — or at least her proximity — to persuade Obama to change his views? Her diplomatic style seems to be less suited for U.S.-Vatican relations and more for U.S.-Cuba relations.”

Reponse by Elizabeth Lev, Mary Ann Glendon’s daughter:

“The Laetare Medal is the highest honor conferred on Catholics in the United States. For a Catholic, it has greater prestige than a Nobel Prize for a scientist or an Academy Award for an actor, as the award is given for career-long achievement, for “staying the course” in the words of St. Paul. It doesn’t just showcase a single discovery or film role.


To renounce it, therefore, is not the lightest of matters. Professor Glendon has spent a month thinking, consulting, and given her deep faith, praying about this decision. (This, for those of you who don’t know, means asking God to help one put aside one’s own personal concerns and act in the way that will produce the greatest good). (Kaitlyn) Riely’s dismissive “thanks, no thanks” rendering of her decision, while pithy, is reductive.

Professor Glendon was to have been honored for not only for her scholarship, but for her second career, her pro-bono work — ranging from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the great civil rights issues of the present day — namely, the defense of human life from conception to natural death. Her concerns range from the aging and dying population to the unborn to the well-being and dignity of every life, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. Her outstanding work in this field has earned her the respect of the most brilliant minds of the international community, regardless of whether they agree with her position. So again, to see her merely as “strongly anti-abortion” instead of as a tireless defender of the dignity of life, is to reveal not only a lack of understanding of the subject’s work, but also the writer’s real interest in this question.

Furthermore, during his first 100 days in office, President Obama has worked tirelessly to undermine Professor Glendon’s lifetime of work; he is funding abortion out of the bailout package and planning to suppress the protection of conscience for health care workers.

Your notion that her “training in diplomacy” might somehow ease this situation does not take into account that she has a five-minute acceptance speech and he will have a lengthy commencement speech. There is no “engaging” here. Diplomacy generally teaches that if you have a rapier and your opponent has a missile launcher, try not to engage.

That Professor Glendon “did not like that Notre Dame was claiming her speech would serve to balance the event” is again facile and simplistic. What is there to like in being the deflector screen for inviting a profoundly divisive figure to give the commencement speech? What is likeable about a Catholic University named for the most important woman in Christianity exploiting a woman who has already dedicated her life to protecting the Church’s teaching by turning her into a warm-up act for a grotesque twist on a reality show?

Finally, after 50 Catholic bishops condemned the university for its direct defiance in honoring a man in open conflict with the Church’s teaching, it is right that Professor Glendon let her silence speak louder than her five-minute allotment of words would have.
Readers might be wondering how I know all this. Well, for one I am her daughter, but more to the point, I read her letter with the careful consideration it deserves.”

Elizabeth Lev is an art historian and writer based in Rome, where all of her three children were born… more

Michelle Malkin sums up Obama’s first 100