Thursday, January 28, 2010

Haiti and Abortion: A Tale of Two Catastrophes

A big debt of gratitude is owed to Mitch Majeski, pastor at Summitview Community Church in Fort Collins, CO, whose sermon last week provided much of the inspiration for this column.

Hollywood celebrities raised nearly $60 million in abortion-relief funds during last week’s MTV-sponsored telethon. Crisis pregnancy centers were among a handful of pro-life organizations that will benefit from the telethon.

Psych. There was no star-studded, televised charity event aimed at raising money to help the pro-life cause. There was, however, Hope for Haiti Now, hosted by George Clooney and Wyclef Jean, which raised $58 million for Haitian relief efforts.

Let’s face it: supporting Haiti is, like Hansel, so hot right now. It’s the cool thing to do. If Bono, Madonna, Beyonce and Sting show up for a charity telethon, the “cause” must be Billboard Top-20 hip. Haiti is the cause du jour.

On the one hand, the outpouring of support and compassion for the Haiti people is an inspiring testimony of our willingness to help our fellow Man. The best of the human condition is on full display in Haiti, in the midst of unspeakable tragedy and misery.

On the other, self-congratulation and self-exoneration seem to be the motivating factors for being charitable. Forget about true broken-heartedness over the catastrophe, the lost lives and the orphaned children. We write checks to ease a guilty conscience, to appear righteous. “I did my part.” The focus is on the giver, not the receiver. Celebrities arrive at and depart from a charity event in VIP motorcades and that makes them compassionate because…why?

Perhaps the biggest fallout of cause du jours is that we lose perspective on more devastating catastrophes closer to home. This last Sunday was Sanctity of Life Sunday, marking the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers marched and prayed all week in hope that the catastrophe of abortion will eventually come to an end.

Yes, I said catastrophe. It’s time we looked at abortion through this narrative.

Let’s break it down by the numbers. Since 1973, 50 million unborn children in the United States have been sacrificed on the altar of “choice”. Let that sink in: 50 million. Stalin has nothing on us. As of this writing, the estimated death toll in Haiti is approximately 150,000, although 200,000 are feared dead. We would need a Haiti earthquake every day until October in order to reach the death toll that abortion has racked up.

But we don’t see Hollywood elitists rallying to the cause of the unborn. The hypocrisy of the “bleeding-heart” Left runs so deep they’re willing to shell out millions of dollars to help save the lives of those affected by an earthquake, but here at home they champion the choice that has allowed the slaughter of 50 million innocent lives.

We on the Right aren’t off the hook, though. We withhold compassion and generosity because we don’t believe that continuing to throw money at Haiti will accomplish any lasting change, as David Brooks poignantly pointed out in the New York Times on Jan. 14.

So instead of giving money, give of yourself. Go to your local church, or local branches of the Salvation Army or Red Cross, and ask them how you can help the people of Haiti in real, tangible ways.

And if you want to try to bring an end to the abortion catastrophe, volunteer at your nearest Crisis Pregnancy Center, youth groups, community health departments, or on the staff of a pro-life political candidate.

Criticizing the Left in an op-ed column is easy; doing our part to save lives at home and abroad is hard work. But it’s the best kind of work, because we do it out of genuine humanity, not for the benefit of any singular political party or for a boost to our self-esteem.

Friday, January 8, 2010

What You See (is not) What You Get

From Jay Ambrose’s piece in the Orange County Register today:

Have the citizens of this nation caught on yet that the candidate they saw in the campaign is not the president they got after the election? And on this particular issue, are they aware of how just how cruel a joke the Democratic health plan has become and just how desperately the president and his leftist cohorts want to foist this measure on us, even to the extent of buying Senate votes?

Read the entire piece here, on RealClearPolitics.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Merry Greenmas

Ever wonder what a truly environmentally-conscious Christmas would look like? Wonder no more:

"No tree. No driving to the tree lot, watching them saw the tree down, wrapping it in plastic and then driving back home. No driving to Target, buying a plastic tree and driving home. We make a tree mural out of shopping bags and leave a few Sharpies around to decorate with. It's personal, meaningful and 100 percent recycled."

This from the Alternative Consumer magazine. They have more Christmas "rules," including, "No holiday hams. French toast can replace tired turkey and ham dinners."

Peace and goodwill to you, too, Christmas nazis.

You can read more about the Alternative Consumer's vision of a merry-less Christmas at Ralph Reiland's Pittsburgh Tribune blog. Plenty other goodies in his post about Christmas for those on the "green" side of life. These people make the Grinch look like Santa Claus.

Friday, November 20, 2009

"Vogon Care" and Saturday Night Lies

I'm tired of "Obamacare", "Pelosicare", and "Reidcare". Lame. Let's get creative! How about "Shadow care"? "We Really Don't Care about You care"? "Enjoy Your Time in Prison care"?

My personal favorite is "Vogon care". Vogons, of course, are the galactic bureaucrats from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. According to the Guide, "Vogons are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous."

Sounds like the people trying to ram socialism -- err -- healthcare reform down our throats. I'll take it! "Vogon care" it is! Vogons, like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc., are also in favor of death panels, because they won't even save their grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without all of the necessary (and unnecessary) paperwork.

Similarly, don't let your Congressmen or Congresswomen read you poetry -- it will be as malicious, incomprehensible, tortuous and nauseating as their 2,074-page healthcare bill.

Speaking of which...

Senate Democrats have cleared the way for a Saturday night vote to begin the healthcare debate, a Democratic aide said.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has agreed to relent on his demand for Senate clerks to read aloud the 2,074-page bill and allow the chamber to take a critical test vote, said the aide. Reading the bill on the Senate floor was estimated to take as many as 30 hours or longer, raising the possibility of the Senate staying in session into next week.

Heaven forbid United States senators put in any overtime in debating the most dastardly piece of legislation ever assembled in the Senate. Thirty hours for 2,074 pages comes out to almost 70 minutes of debate a page. Instead, there will be no reading of the bill, and the Senate will take a vote at 8 pm Saturday night to end debate on a motion to move forward with the bill.

Not only haven't these senators read the bill, but these Saturday night vote fests are getting more than just a little worrisome. The House passed this bill on a Saturday night, and now the Senate is trying to end debate on a Saturday night. I might be mistaken, but constituents can't call their senators' office at 8 pm on a Saturday night, now can they? So glad our elected officials are looking out for our best interest.

Hey, waddya know? Another similarity they have with Vogons.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Jumping to All the Wrong Conclusions

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but between President Obama's no-show at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, and his "let's not jump to conclusions" apology in the wake of the Ft. Hood terrorist attack, it's hard not to have any misgivings about Obama's priorities and his increasingly multicultural, morally-relativistic geopolitical worldview.

(On a side note, I just set a personal record for longest opening sentence in a blog!)

Toby Harnden's piece in the UK Telegraph nails Obama's decision not to go to Berlin on the head: "Perhaps Obama felt that celebrating the role of the United States in bringing down the wall would be a bit triumphalist and not quite in keeping with his wish to present America as a declining world power anxious to apologise for sundry historic misdeeds."

Zing!

If it's not about Obama, he won't be there. Harnden notes that Obama was able to find time to go to Berlin while he was campaigning for President, but now? Too busy. But pencil him in for accepting his Nobel peace price in December!

Regarding the PC storm surrounding the Ft. Hood massacre, Ralph Peters writes in the New York Post that in order to "call this an act of Terrorism, the White House would need an autographed photo of Osama bin Laden helping Hasan buy weapons in downtown Killeen, Texas. Even that might not suffice."

Obama's reaction to the Ft. Hood attack pales in its moral decisiveness and outrage when compared to his remarks about the killing of abortionist George Tiller. Did the President "caution against jumping to conclusions"? Did he (and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano) warn about backlash against pro-lifers? As Al would say, I don't think so, Tim.

So what we have here is a President of the United States who willingly chooses not to celebrate one of the greatest moments of freedom in the history of mankind (and that was brought about directly by U.S. foreign policy and moral resolve), and who lacks the stones to call a terrorist a terrorist because it might offend a certain people group.

Personally, I find it offensive when a U.S. Army major kills 13 of his fellow service members while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!"

But I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The new heart-healthy workout

From the always informational Ethiopian Review:

A study by German scientists showed that 10 minutes a day of ogling women’s breasts by men was as good at warding off heart disease, high blood pressure and stress as 30 minutes of aerobic exercise.The five-year study conducted by Dr. Karen Weatherby, followed 200 men. Those who partook in boob ogling for just 10 minutes a day enjoyed benefits equal to those of 30 minutes of grunting, groaning, sweating and doing push-ups at the gym. . . .

“There is no question that gazing at breast makes men healthier,” Weatherby said.


A few things:

1) I don't know if this is good or bad.

2) They needed to conduct a five-year study to tell us this? Really?

3) What about blind people? And eunuchs?

4) Is there a "vice versa" form of this "exercise" for women?

5) I'm glad that I'm married.

6) Feminists can view this one of two ways: Firstly, that this is a sign of women's power over men; or they can see it as further proof that modern science is sexist and men are sexist because they get excited about staring at boobs for 10 minutes.

7) How will the PR departments in the gym/fitness industry respond? "We have large-breasted women for you to ogle while using our state-of-the-art cardio room"?

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

So a guy with a concealed carry permit walks into a bar...

I'm movin' to Arizona! From the AP:

. . . a new Arizona law that goes into effect Wednesday . . . will allow guns into Arizona bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Under the law, backed by the National Rifle Association, the 138,350 people with concealed-weapons permits in Arizona will be allowed to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.

Those carrying the weapons aren't allowed to drink alcohol.