Obama and the "Abortion Reduction" Scam

During the 2008 election campaign a group of supposed Evangelicals (more accurately "sort of, kind of, used to be" Evangelicals) like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren, claimed that Obama was a new sort of Democrat whose policies would actually reduce the total number of abortions. They accused Evangelicals who opposed Obama of preferring to support the party of war instead of what they insisted was the true pro-life party. Tony Campolo tried to get abortion reduction language into the Democratic Party Platform and, having failed, claimed victory anyway on the basis of some very fuzzy wording. Being a little fuzzy was what the Democratic Party considered to be a major compromise. Even the honorable Ron Sider was swept up in the nonsense.

So two years later, what do the advocates of abortion reduction have to show for their efforts? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to chug along as predicted and Obama's record is now clearly that of the most pro-abortion president in American history by a wide margin. Those Evangelicals who were duped into supporting Obama, along with a strong majority of Independent voters, are now experiencing buyer's remorse and getting ready to vote against the Democratic stranglehold on Congress in November. Meanwhile, Wallis, McLaren and Campolo are laughing at the gullibility of the Evangelicals who voted for Obama as the big government/big spending agenda is imposed on America in an attempt to turn the country into a failed European social democracy.

Steven Ertelt has done the depressing job of documenting and listing the pro-abortion actions of President Obama during the past two years here. Hardly a week has gone by but what Obama has not made a pro-abortion appointment, made a pro-abortion speech or funneled some cash to a pro-abortion group. So many Republican pro-life policies have now been changed that the lie is thereby given to the argument that pro-lifers should not bother supporting the Republicans because the Republicans never did anything about abortion anyway. From Mexico City to the Supreme Court appointments to funding for abortions by the federal government, Obama has reversed pro-life policies supported by Republican administrations.

Read Ertelt's list and then see if talk of "abortion reduction" means anything to you. It is now proven to be what many of us called it at the time: a scam.

A Kind of "Pacifism" that Leads to War

I have been struggling with the issue of pacifism for nearly twenty years now and my academic work includes a doctoral thesis and book on John Howard Yoder. Yoder, or at least the early Yoder, taught a Christological pacifism for the Church as part of the witness of the Christian community to the eschatological Kingdom of God.

Unlike the liberal pacifism of the Social Gospel movement, which urged modern nation states to disarm unilaterally after World War I and thereby made it safe for Hitler to re-arm and start World War II, Christological pacifism does not expect non-Christian governments in a fallen world to be pacifist. Paul was clear on this point in Rom. 13 and the Sermon on the Mount is for the Church, not the unbelieving world.

The problem is that Mennonites from the beginning of their history to the present have been tempted to make the call to pacifism the content of their message to the world instead of the Gospel of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ with pacifism following as the result of faith and discipleship. When the Church asks the world to be pacifist without being converted, it in effect denies original sin and implicitly downgrades the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. It becomes a subset of liberal Protestantism.

The Mennonites and other peace churches are always tempted by liberal pacifism and, from my experience with Mennonite scholars, they succumb to this temptation more often than not. A controversy is currently going on concerning the proper interpretation of the work of John Howard Yoder and the currents are flowing in the direction of co-opting him for the side of liberal pacifism.

I went to the Mennonite Central Committee website hoping against hope that I would not find them taking the usual anti-Israel line in common with the secular and religious Left. I was hoping that they would not be advocating a "peace" in which Israel simply allows Hamas and Hizbollah to blow it to bits. I was hoping that the Mennonites would see peace as the mission of the Church rather than a political program for nation states in a fallen pre-Second Coming world.

I was disappointed. Below is a portion of a press release in which the MCC joins with the Marxists, liberationists, social gospelers, socialists, the EU, Hamas, Iranians, Turks, etc. in condemning Israel for defending itself. The press release calls for the unilateral lifting of the blockade of Gaza by Israel immediately. It proposes no mechanism by which arms to Hamas may be kept out of Gaza. It makes no demands of Hamas or its sponsors. It does not condemn Hamas for rejecting a two-state solution or calling for the destruction of Israel. In the name of peace it calls for a policy that will surely lead to war, bloodshed and the killing of civilians.

If this is pacifism, I would like to distance myself as far as possible from it. The use of the words "pacifism" and "peace" is positively Orwellian. The "liberal pacifists" unwittingly helped pave the way for the first Holocaust and they have learned nothing from history.

Here is the press release entitled: "MCC urges governments to end the Gaza blockade."

WINNIPEG, Man. – Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is urging the governments of the U.S. and Canada to work constructively within the international community to restore the normal flow of goods and people through Gaza-Israel border crossings.

In letters to the U.S. president and Canada’s foreign affairs minister, MCC urges them to support an impartial and independent investigation into Israel’s deadly response to the Free Gaza flotilla on May 31.

The convoy, carrying 10,000 tonnes of much-needed aid, was attempting to enter the Gaza Strip by sea and break the Israeli blockade that has a devastating effect on the livelihoods and lives of Gaza’s 1.5 million Palestinians. The convoy was intercepted by the Israeli military before reaching Gaza and clashes led to the deaths of nine people.

Daryl Byler, MCC’s representative in the region, said hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza live in dire conditions without employment and basic supplies because of the Israeli blockade.

Read the rest here.

This is modern Progressivism but it is not historic, orthodox, Christianity. In my heart, I want to believe Yoder would not be so naive, but it is hard to prove what he would or would not say today, a decade after his death.

But it would appear that those who claim his mantle today have enlisted him in modern Progressivism. Let there be no mistake: Yoder interpreted through the lens of modern Progressivism is a heretic and a dead end theologically - just like theological liberalism in general.

Athanasius on Trespass and Corruption

In re-reading St. Athanasius' great classic, On the Incarnation, last night, I noticed how clearly he puts the matter of original sin and redemption. Our plight is not merely one of "trespass" but of "corruption." In section 7, he writes:

Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that this was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What - or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? He part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father. [my bolding]

The words in bold are chilling because they utterly destroy all human hope of salvation apart from the sacrificial death of Christ for us. Just as much as Calvin or Owens or Packer, Athanasius teaches what the NT teaches, namely, that we are doomed and helpless apart from the work of Christ on the cross. Our plight is not merely one of trespass, but one of corruption. We need more than an example or an inspiration; we need a Savior.

Sometimes we forget that the reason the early Church Fathers so strongly emphasized the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation was not because those doctrines were some sort of end in themselves. Rather, they did so because they form the basis upon which the doctrine of redemption from sin through the cross rests. They are thus as Evangelical as any Evangelical could ever hope to be.

Does Obama Have any Vision for Foreign Affairs Other Than to Blame Bush for Everything?

Victor Davis Hanson zeros in on Barack Obama's foreign policy - or lack thereof - in a lucid and damning piece entitled "'Bush Did It' is Not a Foreign Policy." Here are some of the key passages:

Ronald Reagan came into office with the idea of rolling back the Soviet Union. Reagan hoped that such an evil empire might collapse from its inability to match a newly confident United States.

George H. W. Bush sought to oversee a peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, the reunification of Germany, and a new Western-led world order that thugs such as Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein could not disrupt.

Bill Clinton pushed Western-inspired liberal globalization to lift the Third World out of poverty.

After 9/11, George W. Bush sought to keep America safe from another round of Islamic terrorism while promoting Middle East constitutional government as a way of weakening Islamic terrorism.

But what exactly does Barack Obama wish to accomplish abroad?

In interviews and speeches, Obama emphasizes his nontraditional background and his father’s Islamic heritage. Apparently, he hopes that by reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush, America will be better liked.

But without a strategic vision, “Bush did it” leads nowhere — given that most of the world’s problems predated and transcend Bush. Obama doesn’t seem to understand than wanting people to like America is only a means to an end, not a policy in itself — and an especially dubious means, given the character of many nations in the world today.

Nor does Obama comprehend that global tensions often reflect fundamentally different views of the human condition, rather than simple miscommunication or clumsy diplomacy — and so can’t be solved by serial apologies.

Hanson is correct, in my estimation, to suggest that the problem lies in Obama's non-Christian view of human nature as essentially good and the problems of the world as originating from a lack of communication. This is a view of the world held by many liberals, but it is a dangerously false view. Obama's worldview is bumping up against a reality he cannot wish away.

Suddenly, democratic allies such as Colombia, Israel, and India cannot count on our support in their rivalries with aggressive neighbors, while overt enemies such as Iran, Hamas, and North Korea wonder whether a brief window has opened for aggrandizement without repercussions.

In the Middle East, Israel is being tested as never before by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and now Turkey — under the cloud of a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. Apparently, they all think that suddenly the U.S. is no longer Israel’s protector, and the opportunity for upping the ante should not be missed. . . .

Along with Brazil and Russia, Turkey is seeking to water down American efforts to stop Iranian nuclear proliferation. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez now insults an obsequious Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as much as he once did a tough-talking George W. Bush. In fact, the more we reached out in 2009 to Iran, Russia, Syria, Turkey, and Venezuela, the more they all now seem hostile — suggesting magnanimity is often seen by such governments as appeasement that in turn encourages aggression.

Read it all here.

Obama does not understand the world because he does not understand human nature. And he appears to have no vision because no one takes his fluffy, rainbows and unicorns, prizes for everyone, only good intentions matter approach to international affairs seriously.

Do people really think that Hilary Clinton will just sit back and let Obama run again in 2012? Will the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party allow him to run again after he presides over the loss of Congress this Fall? Rasumssen Polls has Obama at a new all time low of 43% approval rating among likely voters and he is a minus 20% when you measure the strongly disapprove to the strongly approve categories. He likely won't be invited to campaign in many parts of the country by Democrats running this Fall. My prediction that he will be a one term president is looking pretty good. But four years is a long time to wait for competence at the top. Many nations wouldn't survive it, but the US will - no thanks to the whiner-in-chief.

And you can bet that when Obama is rejected by his own party and the country as a whole it will George Bush's fault, the fault of the American people for being racist, and everybody's fault but Barack H. Obama's. He probably will write a third autobiography, have a movie made about his life, go on the speaker's tour and make millions, and champion Islamic terrorist groups and their causes. Or maybe he will end up in the UN leading the charge against US policy. At least he would have experience for that job.

Timothy Dalrymple on the Tea Parties and Social Justice

Timothy Dalrymple has a wonderful article on the Tea Party as a social justice movement. I want to quote a couple of passages but I urge you to read the whole thing here: "Is the Tea Party a 'Social Justice' Movement?"

First, he identifies correctly (in my opinion) the source of the passion directed against the Tea Party and conservatives by liberals: [my bolding]

What I witnessed in the Tea Partiers, however, were a moral, sensible, and patriotic people who had a justified concern that their representatives have grown disconnected from those they represent, and are perpetuating a dysfunctional political culture that will thrust our country back to the precipice of economic collapse. Washington cannot pour rivers of money we do not possess into thousands of programs we do not need, in exchange for the mountains of votes that will keep them in power, and complain when the taxpayers get upset. The Tea Partiers are not objecting because they would rather leave the poor to rot than surrender a little more of their money; polls show (as I will discuss in the next part of this series) that Tea Partiers are perfectly willing to accept the need for moderate taxation and social services. Rather, Tea Partiers are objecting because they fear that Washington is caught in a vicious circle of reckless spending and political payback that will cripple our economy and harm all Americans, rich and poor.

This led to the question on my mind that morning. Since it is intent on the formation of a more accountable and more restrained government that will better serve the interest of all Americans: Is the Tea Party movement a social justice movement?

When I asked this question of my beloved liberal friends, they were mortified. There may be no quicker way to help a food-poisoned progressive empty the contents of her stomach than to suggest that the Tea Party movement is just as much a "social justice" movement as are living wage or immigrants' rights movements.

The reason for their response is simple. For many religious progressives, "social justice" has eclipsed the old God in whom they no longer quite believe. The hope of a socially just world has not complemented and enriched (as it should) but impoverished and occluded their hope of eternity with God. Thus, for them, social justice is the final refuge of the transcendent, the one pure act that remains in a tarnished world, the last vision with the power to stir the graying embers of their religious devotion.

Even religious progressives who still believe in an eternal relationship with God tend to see social justice as holy in the Hebrew sense, as that which sets them apart -- apart from the fat cats and the country clubbers, to be sure, but also apart from those Christians, the Christians who live in "Jesusland," attend megachurches, and wear flags on their lapels: the very same conservative Christians who might be found at a Tea Party rally. Thus, to suggest that the Tea Partiers are engaged in a social justice movement is not only to soil their sacred ideal with the grubby fingers of the bigoted Tea Partiers, but to suggest that progressive Christians and conservative Christians are not separated so much by the presence or absence of love for the poor but by their sense of the policies that best serve the poor and the rest of society.

Darlymple goes on to discuss the meaning of the term "social justice" and while I cannot reproduce his whole discussion, here are some salient bits the whet your appetite:

Whether the Tea Party movement actually is a social justice movement obviously depends on how the term is defined. The irony is that one cannot exclude the Tea Party from the social justice category without betraying that "social justice" is a partisan political theory. . . .

When Glenn Beck condemned social justice as a "code word" for liberal political activism, the question that was presented to progressive activists like Jim Wallis was whether social justice is the sole province of left-wing political agitators. With apologies to Albert Einstein, we distinguish between general and special theories of social justice. The general theory is that "social justice is in fact a personal commitment to serve the poor and to attack the conditions that lead to poverty." That is how Jim Wallis defined the term in a Washington Post column. The special theory, by contrast, asserts that social justice is when one attacks "the conditions that lead to poverty" by advocating specifically the policies that liberals prefer. In other words, on the special theory, it is not enough to fight for the conditions that would allow the poor to prosper; one must do so through redistributionist policies, or living wage movements, or stronger unions, or etc. . . .

. . . when Wallis is pressed on whether he is merely anointing his own political preferences in religious rhetoric, he retreats to the general theory of social justice. People all over the spectrum, he says, are social justice Christians; what is important is simply "to stand up for the poor, even against wealth and power when necessary."

The Catholic theologian Michael Novak also offers a universal definition of social justice. After noting all the ambiguities in its history and meaning, Novak suggests that social justice is a joint, cooperative action (thus "social" in its form) for the good of the whole of society (and thus "social" in its end). By this definition, social justice is not an "ideological marker," but is "ideologically neutral." Social justice "is practiced both by those on the left and those on the right" because there is "more than one way to imagine the future good of society." If we adopt Novak's definition, or Wallis' universal definition, then the Tea Party movement is in fact a social justice movement. The great majority of those attending the rallies would tell you that the policies they advocate are for the common good of all, including the poor.

Yet Wallis does not actually hold to the universal theory of social justice. When Wallis actually uses social justice language amongst his supporters, it clearly means pressing for the systemic changes that Wallis and other leaders of "the faith community" prefer. I have never seen Wallis refer to a movement pressing for conservative policies, even when those policies are overtly intended to serve the poor and needy, as a social justice action.

One might respond that movements must press for a biblical vision of justice in order to qualify for the social justice category, and that conservative policies are simply not oriented toward the biblical ideal. To which the answer must be: According to whom? Countless thousands of conservative Christians vote the way they do, and press for the policies they do, precisely because they believe that they fulfill the biblical ideal of justice. . . .

Thus one must adopt the general, ideologically neutral theory of social justice, and then accept that all sorts of activities from soup kitchens to living wage demonstrations to, yes, Tea Party rallies, can count as social justice movements -- or else one must adopt the special, partisan theory of social justice and accept that Glenn Beck had a point. I leave it to my liberal friends to determine which is the more painful.

The dilemma for leftists articulated in that last paragraph is brilliant and true. Jim Wallis calls continually for a new conversation but what he really means is for letting left-wing rhetoric become dominant in places it has not previously been heard. Darlymple is asking for an actual debate between those advocating conservative and socialist methods for serving justice and fighting poverty.

This would require the Left to be willing to allow its left-wing theories to be placed in questioned without resorting to attacks on the character and motivations of conservatives. Are they willing to do that? In my experience most are not and therein lies the problem with having a new conversation.

Robert Barron on the Mission of the Church

This absolutely excellent seven-minute video shows Fr. Robert Barron talking about the mission of the church and its relationship to culture. He begins by reflecting on the empty churches of Europe symbolizing the decline of Christianity on that continent and goes on to think about the question of what we do in such a situation.

Toward the end he says something very profound. He says that when the Church has the opportunity to shape the culture it should do so and when it is persecuted it needs to stand firm. But in both situations the basic task of the Church is to be a witness to Jesus Christ and the good news is that it is possible for the Church to be a witness when it is is standing over against the culture and also when it is shaping and building the culture. The Church's mission is constant although the degree of receptivity in the culture continually fluctuates.

I have never heard a better short summary of the relationship between the Church and Culture. Listen to it; it will be a rich reward for a seven minute investment of your time.



HT - David Fitch

You Tube Censors "We Con the World" But Harper Isn't Conned

The long arm of anti-Semitism now extends even to You Tube. Lawrence Soloman at The National Post explains:

YouTube has censored “We con the world,” a parody that mocks the portrayal of the Free Gaza Flotilla as a humanitarian mission. The parody, which went viral, logging three million views in less than a week and has Russian, French, Portuguese, Hebrew and English versions, is a take-off of “We are the world,” the 1985 pop single produced in aid of humanitarian relief for Africa.

YouTube’s reason for shutting down the video sensation?: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner/Chappell Music, Inc,“ YouTube tells those who try to access the parody.

This claim by YouTube is itself a con. As YouTube well knows, parodies are not subject to a copyright claim. To add to the absurdity of YouTube’s claim, YouTube carries numerous other parodies of “We are the world,” – a search on the YouTube site of “We are the world spoof” turns up 5,100 results.

YouTube’s real problem with this viral hit is the virus of anti-Semitism. “We con the world,” which portrays terrorists on the Gaza flotilla’s ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, explaining how they’ll con the world, hits too close to home for many Hamas sympathizers, who mounted a successful campaign to cow YouTube.

Is this the first time anti-Israel politics have gotten to YouTube? Sadly, no.

This isn’t the first time that YouTube succumbed to pressure from terrorist sympathizers. In 2008, YouTube yanked footage showing the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces during its invasion of Gaza, which also didn’t fit the storyline of Hamas sympathisers.

But the pro-Israel forces are fighting back against the attempted demonizing of Israel by the Leftist-Islamofascist axis. Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper turned up the heat on Hamas-sympathizer Libby Davies:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up the pressure on the NDP’s Libby Davies to resign her position as her party’s deputy leader on Wednesday, accusing her of making “extremist” statements about Israel that were similar to the language used by terrorist organizations.

“The deputy leader of the NDP knew full well what she was saying,” Mr. Harper said during the daily question period in the House of Commons. “She made statements that could have been made by Hamas, Hezbollah or anybody else with no repercussions from that party whatsoever.”

It is high time that the anti-Israel Leftists in Parliament were held accountable for their support for a genocidal death cult that is in the process of trying to destroy Israel and Western civilization. They deserve a lot worse than what they got today. They are the ones whose extreme and violent views deserve to have no audience.

Crazy Capitalists and Rational Terrorists: Welcome to Barack Obama's Alternate Reality

So Obama finally got around to meeting with BP two months after the spill and last night he gave a speech about it comparing the oil spill to a war. After the administration's characterization of terrorist attacks as "man caused disasters" it is beginning to look like they actually don't know the difference between an accident and a war.

But I want to discuss one line of the speech, albeit a very centrally important one, as reported in this article. (The entire speech is here). The reason I want to focus on this one point is that it seems to me to be illustrative of the fuzzy logic of the Left with regard to the issue of capitalism and government regulation.

Obama also included a gratuitous swipe at conservative straw men, who were somehow still in charge of the drilling oversight organization Minerals Management Service and believe in a "failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves."

Now this is standard issue leftist talk: if government does not regulate business they will do horrible things to you and me. But wait a moment, is not capitalism supposed to be built on greed? Are not profits the point? So there is an in-built temptation to cut corners to increase profits and that is what consumer protection regulation must address.

But does anyone seriously expect us to believe that BP deliberately cut corners that would increase the likelihood of a massive oil spill that is going to cost BP and its shareholders billions to clean up? OK, I accept that leftists actually have convinced themselves that capitalist companies like BP are really evil and sinister, but I thought that they were supposed to direct their cunning energies to doing things that increase profits, not wipe them out.

Who benefits from this disaster? Not the shareholders: dividends have been canceled for the rest of the year and share prices are underwater. What about the management? I don't think anyone will get a bonus for engineering this fiasco. How does this disaster improve BP's competitive advantage, increase its profits or make its shares worth more? It does none of those things.

Yet here is Obama gratuitously assuming that BP was just longing for the chance to have a billion dollar accident and the only thing standing between them and the realizing of their fondest ambition was government regulators sternly saying "No." This view of BP (and large corporations in general) is that they are a bunch of crazy Russian nihilists who can't wait to commit suicide in as flashy a manner as possible.

Now if Obama was talking about a terrorist suicide bombing, then the crazy Russian nihilist thing would work for me. The problem is that he treats Muslim terrorists as if they were rational (we must address their "grievances") while treating rational capitalists as if they were religious fanatics (we have to regulate them or they will blow themselves up).

Is BP filled with crazy Russian nihilists? Only a person with a very shaky grasp on reality could think so. Obama either think so or else he is just playing politics and counting on people being too stupid to think it through. Honestly, I don't know which explanation is more likely.

Libby Davies, Will You Please Go Now? Just Go, Go, Go, I Don't Care How

Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East and Deputy Leader of Canada's officially socialist New Democratic Party, was caught on tape stating that Israel's occupation is the longest in the world, dating back to 1948. So she was saying that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East. Here is the YouTube video:



So now Canada has its very own Helen Thomas. Davies looks a bit like a deer caught in the headlights in this video, perhaps because she usually inhabits the echo chamber of the Left and has no idea how to defend her extremism when quizzed by someone skeptical of her liberal orthodoxy.

A firestorm ensured, which is at least something. The Ottawa Citizen ran an editorial criticizing her entitled "Haters' Test" and Prime Minister Harper has called on Jack Layton, the NDP leader, to fire Davies. Davies posted this defensive, ostensible "apology" on her website entitled "Libby's response to inflammatory editorial":

I am writing in response to your June 11 editorial which refers to a video of me recorded last Saturday, and posted online (Hater's, Ottawa Citizen, June 11, 2010).

My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error; I apologize for this and regret any confusion it has caused.

I have always supported a two-state solution to the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have never questioned Israel's right to exist and the Palestinian’s right to a viable state.

New Democrats have long called for a peaceful, negotiated end to the conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side with secure borders. This is a policy I fully support.

I reject the allegation that I hate Israel, and I reject the assertion that I said that Israel is illegitimate or an abomination. Neither are true.

She says that she is not anti-Israel. But the problem is that she also has this post on the same website entitled "Libby Davies speaks out on attack on humanitarian aid ships" in which she says:

I wish to express my sympathy and outrage for the families and friends of those who lost their lives and those who were injured in the horrendous attack today by Israeli Defence Forces against the Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza.

This deadly assault on peace activists, who only wanted the people of Gaza to receive the basic necessities of life, is shocking and unconscionable and demands an immediate investigation and response by the International Community. The illegal siege on Gaza, now in its 3rd year, must be ended.

The Government of Canada must speak out and make it clear that Canada condemns all such actions against innocent people who are peace activists. The hundreds of participants in the Freedom Flotilla who have now been detained by Israel must be released.

As someone who has visited Gaza twice, mostly recently in August 2009, I have witnessed first-hand the devastation of the siege on Gaza and its 1.6 million inhabitants.

Like Rachael Corrie and other internationals who have given their life for peace and justice for Palestinians, we honour their life’s work and will continue to work for peace and justice in the Middle East.

She expects Israel to let Iranian ships dock in Gaza and unload anything they want, knowing full well that what they want to unload is deadly rockets to fire at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities - rockets that would maim and kill thousands of civilians. How do we know this? Because Hamas is committed to destroying the State of Israel and has attacked before. If the Gaza blockade is lifted, the result will be war and the people of Gaza will suffer far more than they are suffering now. The blockade is not preventing aid from reaching Gaza - only weapons. The blockade actually is in the best interests of the people of Gaza and if Libby Davies were really concerned for peace or for the ordinary people of Gaza and Israel then she would not be supporting Iran and Hamas against Israel on this issue.

So when a committed, long-term Hamas supporter inadvertently allows the mask to slip and says on tape that she is really against the existence of the Jewish state itself and then quickly reverses field and claims that the opposite is true, we are left with the dilemma of deciding which time she was lying. Logically, she was either saying the opposite of what she meant on tape or she was lying in her "apology." But her track record and her actions make it more likely that her apology is not the full truth.

She should be fired not because she made a slip of the tongue, but because her whole attitude toward Israel is consistent with that slip. Supporting Hamas itself should be good enough reason for her to be fired. Such a person does not deserve to be in the House of Commons. I hope the people of Vancouver East will send her into retirement with Helen Thomas at the earliest opportunity.

Rabbi Gets a Cold Splash of "Progressive" Jew Hatred

Well, isn't this interesting news. It turns out that the Rabbi who outed Helen Thomas as a anti-Jewish bigot is actually a liberal, New York, Democrat who is now rethinking his own progressivism in the wake of an outpouring of anti-Jewish hatred toward him.

Here is Rabbi Nesenoff's website, Rabbilive.com, on which he has posted some of the 25,000 pieces of hate mail he has received since his interview with Thomas. (Warning: In typical anti-Semitic fashion, much of the material is crude and filthy.)

Here is a story on Newsbusters entitled: "Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is 'Liberal' Who Agreed w/ Her on Iraq War, 'Reevaluating' His Views."

Maybe somebody should send him a copy of Norman Podhoretz' book Why are Jews Liberal? Podhoretz can't figure out why so many American Jews continue to support a political movement that calls itself "Progressive" but apparently thinks that the destruction of Israel would constitute progress. What I can't figure out is why so many Christians continue to support a political movement that calls itself "Progressive" but apparently thinks that the destruction of Christianity and Western Civilization would constitute progress.

As the secular Jihad in alliance with militant Islamofascism picks up steam, Jews and Christians are going to find that we are in the soup together. There is nothing like getting persecuted together to warm up Jewish-Christian relations. But here is an idea: "How about working together to prevent it getting to that point?"

Progressive Groups United Against Israel and in Alliance with Radical Islam

Andrew Marcus at Big Government has a highly informative article, "The Progressive Jihad Against Israel" that presents research on the background of the progressive organizations that are interlocked with radical Muslim terrorist organizations in an effort to overthrow the state of Israel. Here is the opening section:

The Gaza Flotilla incident, which would really be more aptly called the Hamas Flotilla incident, needs to be viewed from a wider perspective to be more fully understood and appreciated for what it represents – A Marxist-Progressive Jihad on Israel, and by proxy, the United States, wherein the American Progressive Left is engaged in an open and working relationship with Islamist radicals.

The Hamas Flotilla action was not an isolated event. It was but the latest in a carefully programmed series of actions that have been taking place since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in a violent coup in 2007, designed by community organizations that have been operating in the region since at least the mid-1990s.

The umbrella organization of this recent series of actions is called the Free Gaza Movement, and represents several international organizations, as well as many prominent American Progressive organizations.

The international organizations include George Galloway’s Viva Palestina, IHH, and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM).

The American Progressive community is organized against Israel under the banner of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

The US Campaign to end the Israeli Occupation is a co-production of Global Exchange/CodePink/United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) (All founded by Medea Benjamin), and a group called the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR).

The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) has been organizing on the ground in Palestinian territories since 1996.

The rest of the article consists of a mass of detail about organizations such as

1. The Progressive Democrats of America
2. Global Exchange (includes Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Global Citizen Center)
3. Alliance of Community Trainers
4. International Solidarity Movement
5. Center for Economic and Social Rights
6. Movement for a Democratic Society (founded by SDS and Weather Underground leader Tom Hayden and friends)
7. The New Party/Working Families Party

These groups form a matrix of interlocking people, mailing lists, agendas, campaigns and direct actions. Some have ties to Hugo Chavez, others are in direct continuity with 60s radical leftist groups, and most are deeply imbued with Marxist ideology. They are fighting to overthrow the state of Israel and they view America as evil and worthy of being overthrown as well. They represent a fifth column in the 1400 year war of Islamofascism against the West.

Read the whole article to get details, web links, names, etc.

Contraception, Abortion and the Culture of Death

Here is a story from the Daily Telegraph that documents the growing culture of death in the UK. Abortion is increasingly being used as a form of birth control.

Government data have disclosed that 89 girls aged 17 or under who terminated a pregnancy last year had had at least two abortions previously.

The head of Britain’s largest abortion provider said many young women were living chaotic lives that meant they could not organise contraception. . . .

Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said repeated pregnancies among teenage girls were often caused by chaotic lifestyles and difficulties they had in using contraception.

This is an interesting revelation. I always thought that pregnancy was caused by having sexual intercourse. It really is good to have this cleared up (!) The story notes:

Almost 18,000 abortions were carried out on girls aged under 18, including more than 1,000 on girls aged 14 or under. The statistics follow controversy last month about Britain’s first television advertisement for abortion services.

Radical feminists have defended this practice and are intent on continuing to defend it until new chemical abortion drugs have come onto the market. The Washington Post reports on a new "contraceptive" that works up to five days after intercourse. But, of course, it is probably, at least in come cases destroying a fertilized embryo.

A French drug company is seeking to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after "the morning after."

The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive -- one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days after unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could also induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo.

The controversy sparked by that ambiguity promises to overshadow the work of a federal panel that will convene next week to consider endorsing the drug. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive -- Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill -- the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a pregnancy.

The line between contraception and abortion is becoming increasingly blurred. Surgical abortion on a mass scale is a modern invention; chemical abortion (along with infanticide) has been the norm throughout fallen human history. We may soon get to the point where surgical abortion is relatively rare while chemical abortion is as common as contraception is today.

Having spent most of my life blithely assuming that one could easily draw a line between abortion (evil) and contraception (neutral), I now find it more and more difficult to regard contraception with anything less than horror and loathing. It seems more and more clear to me that contraception is a foundational building block of the culture of death.

One of the signs of our fallenness as human beings is that we so easily desire to have sex with people we don't want to have children with. This was seen by the Church Fathers - following Scripture - as lust. Today it is seen as a natural and good thing. We can't have it both ways. This is one of those points where we have to decide if Christianity is true or not. When we reach the point as a culture where we are willing to offer our children as sacrifices to the idol of sensual pleasure - when we are literally willing to kill for sex - then we know that we have sunk to the level of the nations in the land of Canaan that God told the Israelites to exterminate.

Thinking of contraception as morally "neutral" in this situation seems to be a case of planting one's head in the sand and refusing to face the moral reality around us.