Obama Tells NARAL: We Celebrate Roe, 55 Million Abortions by Steven Ertelt
3 Things We Forget [when foster parenting] by Dan Sadlier
To be happy, we must admit women and men aren’t “equal” by Suzanne Venker
Bullies, Go Home! by Rebekah Maxwell
Culture creep – How an “orientation” is born by Andrée Seu Peterson
A Tale of Two Americas by Owen Strachan – “Paul Harvey vs. Calvin Klein Underwear Guy.”
Ridiculous, pro-life, late-night comedy by Angela Lu – This is completely absurd, and surprising, as Angela Lu explains.
Reasons Christians use for sending their children to government schools by Gary DeMar – What are your thoughts on this?
Not Peace, But a Sword by Peter J. Leithart – On standing for what is right.
The British Lutheran (PDF) – I came across this the other day. It is worth a read–several good articles and some great photos from Malta.
For 5 Years, U.S. Families Pursue Kyrgyz Adoptions – It’s not easy anywhere.
“Fact usually triumphs over fiction — except on TV news. The major networks have been obsessed with Manti Te’o’s fantasy football story of a fictional girlfriend. But when 500,000 people showed up in Washington to speak out for the unborn, it was barely a footnote. ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted close to two-and-a-half hours (147 minutes and 43 seconds) to the Te’o fiasco and just 17 seconds to the Washington, D.C., March for Life. That’s 521 times more coverage for Te’o and a girlfriend who never even existed. … Between the threads of the Te’o story, one anchor, NBC’s Brian Williams devoted 17 seconds to the 40th March for Life last Friday, January 25, saying: ‘Back in this country, in Washington today, thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators marched to the steps of the Supreme Court, protesting the landmark decision that legalized abortion. Annual March for Life, as it’s called, this year, coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.’ The networks have a history of bias concerning the March for Life. The lack of coverage of the march became even more impressive when half a million people attended.”
Media Research Center’s Katie Yoder
From John Smeaton at the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children:
Left-wing French politician “descendant of oppressed people” attacks same-sex marriage
Before the second reading debate, in the House of Commons tomorrow, of the government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, I hope that libertarians on the right and left of British politics will watch or read Bruno Nestor Azerot’s recent moving speech in the French National Assembly. Bruno Nestor Azerot was elected to the French National Assembly on June 17, 2012 representing the department of Martinique. Here is an English summary of what he says:
I have supported all the bills advocated by the left until now.
Gay marriage is a dishonest concept because homosexuality is a matter belonging to the private sphere. Homosexuals need rights of legal protection, but marriage is a public institution.
This bill seeks to create a new norm for the institution of the family, which would change the fundamental rules on marriage, inheritance, consanguinity.
Society has given a legal framework to a natural gift: the union of a man and woman.
It is not the law that denies homosexuals the right to have children: it is nature.
Formerly, the purpose of marriage was regarded as procreation. Now marriage is regarded as a concept of sentiment.
Hedonistic individualism threatens to overthrow the personalist and socialist doctrine on which our whole society, underpinned by the values of solidarity, liberty, equality,has been based.
The family is the pivot of society. If this bill is passed, the family is liable to explode.
The “new equality” would create confusion between genders and upset the values on which our society is based.
Our responsibility to history is great.
The “new equality” would weaken the foundation of the society constructed after the abolition of slavery.
[At this point, the speaker becomes emotional, on one occasion thumping the podium with both hands.]
I am the descendant of an oppressed people. Slaves were denied the right to have children. Marriage was forbidden.
The “new equality” would be a denial of reality, establish a new oppression. The confusion of genders would undo the emancipation of women and lead to their oppression.
It would be forbidden to differentiate between men and women, at the risk of being accused of discrimination.
I affirm the right to marriage between the different, not the similar.
Rather than taking action to solve the problems of housing, youth unemployment, etc, we are instead directing our energies to the promotion of “gay marriage”.