So the truthbucket was stuck and we felt we could not move forward. So we now have our new site, with new name, and a new look. So please come here: http://www.thefunhouse.us to continue to follow us.
“Pop Culture vs. Mainstream America: When whose child you are determines what you are…”
By Hannah Carter, Director of Education for Georgia Right to Life
August 24, 2009
In America, we have a fascination with celebrities’ lives: where they live, what they wear, who they date, and we especially love to read about when they get married or have children. Last week Céline Dion was in the news announcing her most recent pregnancy.
On August 19th, MSNBC reported that Céline Dion was “excited to be expecting her second child.”[i] However, the headline read something different, “Céline Dion’s embryo was frozen for 8 years”.
In January 2009, the FDA approved the Geron Corporation to begin using human embryonic stem cells to treat human patients suffering from spinal cord injury.
Translation: the same life form (human embryos) that the FDA was okay with killing and using for research by the Geron Corporation in one story is viewed as a person in another because he or she is wanted.
However, the inconsistencies do not stop there.
She noted that after looking online and seeing how abortion had affected so many women that she could not go through with an abortion.
“I was just sitting there crying, thinking, ‘I can’t do that,’ “she says.”And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life.”
The opening line of the article did not read would she have her baby or terminate her baby.
A day before, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood blasted the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in an article in The Huffington Post for “demanding universal health care without abortion.” Ms. Richards goes on to report that by leaving abortion out of national health care coverage that the USCCB is making every woman in America “a second class citizen.”[v]
How is it that in one report because Kourtney Kardashian wanted her baby that she was having a child, but in another article Cecile Richards gets infuriated because the thoughts of the USCCB might influence the debate on whether the US Government (a.k.a. US taxpayers) should pay for abortions?
The only answer I can come up with is that in America whose child you are determines what you are.
If you are wanted, you are a baby. If you are unwanted, you are a product of conception.
So for instance, the children born to Céline Dion, Kourtney Kardashian, and Angelina Jolie are persons because they were wanted. But to the 19 year old female college student it is a choice, a burden, and definitely not a human life.
However the question remains is an embryo a person or a product of research? Is an unborn child a life deserving of protection or a problem that must be quietly destroyed?
The comparisons do not sound that sweet when you put them side by side. But inconsistencies exist like this every day. The question is when we as individuals will start calling Planned Parenthood and the main stream media out?
When will we say no, Ms. Richards, denying a woman an abortion is not making her a second class citizen it is giving her the opportunity to be spared from the one of the most horrific medical practices invented since the creation of mankind.
It is giving her child a chance at life.
The same needs to be said to the FDA for embryonic stem cell research. You do not kill one life to potentially save another.
We need to remind people that scientifically the term embryo does not determine what something is but rather what stage of development it is at just like the terms infant, teenager, and adult. A human embryo can only be one thing a human being.
It is scientific fact not political opinion that life begins at fertilization. Once the sperm and the oocyte (egg) join together they form a separate distinct human being, also known at this stage as a zygote or embryo.
The zygote has everything it needs to function as a separate and distinct human being. It only needs time, food, and a place to grow.
No one ever looks at a pregnant woman and says, “I wonder what she is having a boy or a frog?”
Just as now, people are not looking at Céline Dion and Kourtney Kardashian wondering if the children they are carrying are persons or not.
It is time to confront the truth and call out the inconsistencies.
We have to make the humanity of the child relevant again whether he or she is in the embryonic stage or the fetal stage.
It is time that we remind people that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not political wedge issues, but rather the intentional killing of human life.
It is time to realize that what Joseph Stalin once stated is so true, “One death is a tragedy and a million deaths is a statistic.”
Let’s make the destruction of every innocent human life be seen for what it is, a tragedy.
Let’s start now and not finish until every life is valued regardless of its origin, dependency, or disability.
This article was originally featured in Georgia Right to Life’s E-Newsletter, to sign up for the latest life news in Georgia and the United States. Please visit http://bit.ly/zIZS9
Political Rewind: This is a story I wrote around October of last year. It is still something I think is worth reading, so go on, get to it!
Over the last few years conservatism has been slowly passing away. “Why,” was not the question of conservatives. We were wondering, “How?” How can we regain the trust and support of the American people, and how can we stop people from moving over to the Democratic leftist ideas that would doom America to socialism? No one could come up with an answer to this pressing question.
Then John McCain found the solution: Sarah Palin. The faces of the conservative movement were dead (Reagan) and the present faces (Bush and Cheney) were becoming less and less attractive to many Americans. The Democrats had already repackaged their dirty old tricks, ideas and ideology, which the American people hated. They did that with Barack Obama, a far-left liberal who was presentable to the American people, who could hide his ideology behind charismatic rhetoric. So we were in for a world of hurt, but then, with thundering applause, on Sept. 3, for the second time in history, a pro-life, small government, gun-toting, religion-clinging, Republican star was born.
We, average Americans, we, the conservatives, had hope for America’s future. We have the chance to put someone in the White House who knows what we are about, who knows the pain and worries we are feeling. Palin will not be easily removed from the national stage, because she connects with the average voter unlike any other politician in America today.
This was on full display after the announcement of Gov. Palin as John McCain’s vice presidential running mate. The Democrats in the media started a full scale attack on Palin. They relentlessly attacked her in ways that the American people had never seen before. In the furious fit, they did damage to themselves that neither Palin nor any other Republican could have ever done. They exposed their true media bias to the public. They showed their true colors, and people were outraged. Palin during this time looked more and more like a regular American. The media elite hated it, but the American people loved it. The Palin effect what is it, and how does she connect so well? The answer is simple; it is something America always looks for in a public servant. We want someone that does more than talk. We want someone that will go fight for us. We want someone that will risk political friendships to be on the side of the American people and we want someone that will root out all evil and corruption that is in Washington.
Many people see Sarah Palin as just the person to do that.
For the longest time I have thought on the idea of a wasted vote? I have always been of the belief that when you vote for a third party candidate you have in essence wasted your vote because they cannot win. Admittedly, I have questioned my certainty if you vote for someone not purely on the will of your conscience but for the ability to win, you have thrown your values out for the sake of victory. I would like to address something from Glen Beck’s latest book Common Sense in which he said, “When we support or vote for candidates outside the two major political parties we are immediately lectured about wasting our vote or making it easier for the less desirable of the two major candidates to claim victory.” I have two major problems with this sentiment first and foremost Americans, I dare say the majority, subscribe to parties and perception by this I mean some only vote solely on party platform and rarely care about the issues others vote solely on perception by this I mean if one party is in charge and things are going well they vote them back in, if not the opposite effect happens. You might say, “Well the American people will get fed up against the two party system.” This will not happen. The American people have enjoyed for to long the protection the constitution has provided them against the maggots on capitol hill, we as voters have gotten lazy. The American people have become so accustom to not looking at candidates, not looking at issues, they vote on party and perception. The other problem I have, is Mr. Beck nonchalantly describes the differences in someone like a McCain and an Obama, when their deference’s are insurmountable, it’s not just the “less desirable,” it is a difference of liberty and tyranny.
I have become fed up with my local Republican leaders because they are supporting someone who is less Conservative than other candidates because they believe he has a better chance in the general election. I believe this is absolute ignorance, if you don’t support the person with whom you agree, they won’t have a chance at victory. If I believe these Republican leaders are wasting their votes for the ability to win, If I believe they’re tossing their values for victory, then I too am wasting my vote for the chance to win, I too am tossing values for victory, am I not?
This is where the question is diluted with two competing arguments. Do you support the person who has no chance of winning but you most agree with or do you support someone who you agree with 60-70% of the time and has a chance at victory? I would say the difference lies in the stage of the election, are we speaking about a primary or a general election? The stakes aren’t as great in the primary, if you support someone with your conscience in the primary that person might win, but if they loose all you end up with is a lesser conservative. Whereas in a general election if you support the third party candidate, who by all measures cannot win, you give the ability to someone who would enslave us in tyranny a greater chance at the Presidency. This is my proposition, support and vote for the most moral conservative person with the best record in the primary. If you sadly end up loosing and your choice is between a McCain, an Obama, or some no named third party candidate. I think it is morally reprehensible to choose the third party candidate and let someone as vile as a Carter, Gore, Clinton, or Obama into the white-house because you did not want to choose the lesser of two evils. I as of now, believe it is morally superior to do your utmost to block those who would seek to destroy life, eliminate freedom, and enslave future generations. This is what I think, but I still struggle with the idea and would like to hear your thoughts.
I have been holding off on saying anything substantial about healthcare because it is the only thing we hear about from day-to-day in American politics. Just so everyone knows where I stand, “I am rich beyond my wildest dreams and want all those little poor people to die so that I can use their bodies to fuel my fleet of SUV’s.” Well, that is how the Obama administration sees my views. What I stand for, according to Obama, is actually what I stand against. I am against a national healthcare policy not because I hate the poor, but because I know that every country throughout history that has implemented this kind of “national healthcare” has seen its economy plummet, its healthcare die, and its people gain tyranny and loose liberty. There was once a saying that many people would subscribe to, “If you do not know history you’re doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.” The modern American not only is ignoring history, but they ignore the current medical problems of countries like Canada and England, these countries have warned America of the problems we will inherit if we implement the proposed reform.
You can read story after story of the horror that comes from a “national healthcare”; men and women just like you and I are denied care because of age and cost. If this is implemented there will be a cutoff age for care, there will be Washington bureaucrats coming between you and your Doctor telling you what procedures your allowed to have. This is, however, what I am least scared of. The most frightening part of a system of this nature is the control it gives the government. We are a nation of laws and once this is implemented the government would have openly spit in the face of our founders while simultaneously burned the constitution in the public square. I would like every American to meet the call of Benjamin Franklin, “I have given you a republic, if you can keep it.” So can we as Americans rise up and fight the socialists on capitol hill? Those, who hide their tyranny behind the fake pleas of the so called “poor”? Can we rip from them the veil of sympathy they hide behind and show the true evil that eclipses, the evil that would enslave our children’s children to a overreaching, overbearing, tyrannical government.
View full size, here.
This is from the brilliant mind of my 14 year old brother, in response to our new Science Czar making the case that trees have legal rights and should be allowed to go to court to protect those rights. John P. Holdrenn (Science Czar) said, Giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment.
National pride is a powerful tool for any society, for any government. It can push a country forward or hold it back. If America does not pride, the country itself cannot move forward. If we consistently hear from our leaders that American history is shameful, that what we’ve done is nothing more than filth, why would we be motivated to move that country forward?
Well, if a certain group didn’t want America to advance then they would need to force the American people into a state of self-hatred, they would need to make us believe that what we’ve done, the advances we’ve made are one of two things: they are either not honorable or not ours. This is exactly what Obama and his elk would have the American people believe. From the day he took the oath of office, he has been either apologizing or denying what we as Americans have done. He has said that it was a group of nations who took out the threat of the Soviet Union, which is crap! America and America alone forced the demise of that “evil empire.” Not a group of nations.
The American history is one filled with greatness and honor. We escaped a nation that would silence our freedom of religion, we not only escaped, but we managed to birth the most powerful nation this world has ever known. America developed medicines far beyond that of any other country. The American space program expanded our understanding of the universe; it also had its practical uses like the GPS. And that is just the beginning; we’ve ended countless wars and have given countless dollars towards those in need. America is the shining city on the hill, thousands flee their countr ies in search of a better life here and it’s not because of how despicable we are. It is because of our greatness. I think what America should be most proud of is the fact that we have given others the ability to fight tyranny for the hope of liberty.
The other day I was asked, “What is a republican, democrat, conservative, moderate?” Because I had little time to answer, I just said, “That’s a lot of questions.” The party went on. When it was over, I had some time to think about the question at hand. Republican and Democrat are parties and therefore their descriptions lie in their party platforms, which you might try rooting out in 60+ page documents, with no real meaning at all. The short answers are: Republicans believe in small government, supply side economics (by cutting people’s taxes you change their behavior, they work harder, and produce more), and support moral values of majority of the population (silent majority). The democrats, in short: believe in big government, open behaviorism (you do what’s right for you), and trickle up economics (by giving to the poor, they are less likely to save and therefore more likely to spend, pushing the economy forward).
Those are just the parties, what about the ideologies, the belief systems? In this set you have conservatives, liberals, statists, communists, socialists, and libertarians. It would be nearly impossible for me to break these categories down on a blog. I will instead align them with parties, link, and compare the groups. Statists, socialists, and communists are evil groups who wish to destroy this country and remake it in the image of the Soviet Union. Those three differ in many ways, with socialist and communist being the extreme. The statists, about which many Americans don’t hear often, are the “big government” policy makers like Queen Nancy, Prince Harry, and the one himself Obama, they adhere to this ideology. They comprise the modern Democratic Party. The Democratic Party once was voiced by sane liberals, but now it has been taken over by America hating statists. They, just as the socialists and communists, believe that the government is better at making your life decisions then you are.
The conservatives is what I like to call the happy-middle-ground. Unlike statists, socialists, communists, and liberals (at times), they believe that the Constitution is law, it is not a living breathing document, and cannot be changed, it says what it means, and means what it says. The conservative does not want the government in control of our lives, because the government is too often the problem, not the solution. Conservatives, unlike libertarians (anarchists), know that the government has limited functions: it needs to protect the population against dangerous drugs, needs to keep our borders secure, and needs to defend our independence during wars.
After bailouts, stimulus, and mandated pay, you must contemplate the loss of America’s Liberty, and if the American people realize what they are giving up. I believe the small steps of erosion taking place on America’s liberty by the people in Washington will lead to a day when our children ask of us “Why did you not fight for our liberty, why did you not fight for our freedom?”
This, for many Americans, will be a sad day in our nation, when the loss of liberty has enslaved Americans to point of no return. You might say, “You’re overreacting!” You might say, “It cannot be this bad.” If you look at the power Washington now has, the power to take and give as they see fit, it’s scary, like Hitler scary. The worst part is we let them have it, we gave them power that they should not have been entrusted with.