|
Who is
Responsible for these Millions of Murdered Babies? |
|
Democrats, Feminists and You... |
This article below
is a really good read about the feminist movement and
it's hypocritical viewpoints. It is a bit long, but very
much worth the time!
7. Commentary by by Don Feder, Posted Mar 07, 2006:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13017
Back in the 1980s, when conservative social critics
suggested it was better for the mothers of young children to
stay home (instead of consigning them to day-care gulags),
feminists were furious.
"How dare you tell women what to do!" they screeched. "The
nerve trying to tell us how to live our lives!"
So, guess who's now telling women how to live, and
excoriating them for thinking independently?
Feminists. Under a veneer of empowerment, the
movement has always been fascistic. It's instructive to now
see the sisters goose-stepping out of the totalitarian
closet, truncheons raised to smash errant skulls.
Leading the charge is Linda Hirshman, lawyer, professor and
scourge of stay-at-home moms.
Recently, ABC's Good Morning America (which my friends at
the Media Research Center call "Good Morning Morons")
showcased Hirshman's rant on two consecutive shows, in
segments titled Mommy Wars: To Work or Stay at Home?
and How to Raise Kids: Stay Home or Go to Work?
Typical of what passes for balance on the networks, Good
Morning America afforded roughly 80% of each segment to
Hirshman's views. Dissenters got nodding notice to maintain
the pretence of fairness.
Hirshman has attained celebrity status by alerting us to the
under-reported crisis of our time -- despite decades of
feminist indoctrination (delivered from the classroom to
entertainment television --where what used to be called
housewives are practically nonexistent) -- women are
actually choosing to stay at home and nurture their
children. Global terrorism, global warming - kids' stuff, by
comparison.
ABC cited census data showing 54% of mothers with a graduate
or professional degree no longer work full- time. This is
bolstered by Hirshman's own study of 30 women whose wedding
announcements appeared in the New York Times in 2003 and
2004. Only five are now working full-time outside the home.
Ten work part time. The rest lead lives unsatisfactory to
Hirshman and her allies.
Feminists are threatened by this phenomenon. It's ideology
-- and not the interests of women, individually or
collectively -- that drives them.
Hirshman's position: Stay-at-home moms are leading
impoverished lives, wasting their educations, short-changing
their children (who miss the joys of being raised by total
strangers who are paid to care about them) and doing
incalculable damage to the cause of women's rights.
"I think it's a terrible mistake for these highly educated
and capable women to make that choice
(choosing children and home over career), Hirshman
declares. "I am saying an educated, competent adult'' place
is in the office." Yes, I think we got that.
The Ms. Magazine Poster Person isn't buying the argument
that raising the next generation is in any way, shape or
form fulfilling. "I would like to see a description of their
daily lives that substantiates that," Hirshman harrumphs.
"Their description of their lives does not sound
particularly interesting or fulfilling for a complicated
person, for a complicated, educated person," she adds.
What Hirshman means is: "I don't find their lives
particularly interesting or fulfilling -- and my judgment is
the measure of all things." And to think, feminists have
been accused of elitism.
Hirshman belittles those women who believe there's no
substitute for mom.
She pushes a proposition absurd on its face -- that there is
no difference in the "happiness levels" of children
consigned to the Joyful Tots Detention Center, versus those
raised at home.
In the first place, only someone with a PhD. (a complicated,
educated idiot) thinks happiness levels can be measured. And
what about the disease and abuse (physical and sexual)
rampant in day care? How about the fact that children in day
care tend to be more aggressive and less socialized that
their raised-at-home peers?
Have you ever witnessed the heart-rending spectacle of a
three-year-old crying and pushing its mother away --
screaming that it wants to be taken to day care? Nor will
you.
As a counterpoint to Hirshman, Good Morning America
presented Debbie Klett, a mother who left a job in ad sales
and founded a magazine called Total 180, to spend more time
with her kids.
Klett: "For me, I feel it is vital to be there for my
children every day, to consistently tend to their needs, to
grow their self-esteem, and to praise them when they're
right, guide them when they're not, and to be a loving,
caring mom every minute of the day."
Why, the anti-social wretch!
To clinch her argument, Hirshman notes the divorce rate is
over 40%.
These ninnies, says she, they devote themselves to hubby and
kinder, then they're cast aside in a divorce and see their
standard of living take a nose dive.
But it was feminists in the '70s who pushed no-fault
divorce, which -- they maintained -- would liberate women
from stultifying marriages. Now they're using the divorce
rate to scare women into the workforce. Talk about chutzpah.
Hirshman has a prescription for the ticking of biological
clocks: "Have a baby. (If you must.) Just don't have two,"
which makes work outside the home
difficult.
Also, Hirshman advises, find Mr. Mom -- a guy who's into
diapers and dirty dishes. "You can either find a spouse with
less social power (read: money) than you or find one with an
ideological commitment to gender equality (read: gender
sameness)."
I can just picture the personal ad: "Feminist seeks socially
inferior, self-neutered male who believes that men and women
are emotionally androgynous. Objective: A matrimonial merger
and the production of one child, who will be raised by the
proverbial village on The Feminist Mystique and Our Bodies,
Our Selves (between viewings of Thelma and Louise and G.I.
Jane)."
In the '80s, young women had a word for such fine specimens
-- "wimp."
Linda Hirshman is doing a great service to humanity. She is
glaringly obnoxious proof of what conservatives have been
saying for decades --feminists hate the family. (Hirshman:
"The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible,
physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but allows
fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public
spheres like the market or government.")
In other words, the female insurance executive or the female
junior college instructor (lecturing a roomful of bored
freshmen in a 101 course) is engaged in stimulating,
fulfilling, socially useful activity, while the mother who
sees a human being developing on a daily basis, and shapes
that life more than anyone else, is a brain-dead drudge and
a dupe.
Here's the ultimate irony: Feminists are anti-feminine. They
reject hearth and home, procreation and childrearing (unless
it's done by "professionals"). They deny the maternal
instinct. They condemn the feminine urge to nurture and to
create a safe haven from the perils of modern life.
(They also deny the male imperative to serve and protect.)
Everything that's distinctive about their sex, they abhor.
Because they hate their nature, they are self- loathing.
Most are miserable -- and deservedly so.
For almost 20 years, I worked in a newsroom with these
resentful, envious, humorless harpies. An uglier lot you
will never find -- this side of Alien vs. Predator.
Most were deeply unhappy with their lives, always ready to
take offense at imaginary slights, convinced that any lack
of advancement was due to a chauvinist conspiracy and angry
at those who challenged feminist dogma. They were about as
much fun as Hillary on a bad hair day (speaking of
resentful, envious, humorless harpies).
Who in their right mind would take life advice from such
spiritually misshapen creatures? ABC News, of course.
This article was originally posted at GrasstopsUSA.com.
Mr. Feder is a former syndicated columnist for the Boston
Herald and author of Who's Afraid of the Religious Right? (Regnery)
and A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America. He works
as a freelance writer and media consultant and serves as the
president of Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation.
|
|
Catholic visitors may want to visit
Father Frank Pavone's site, "Priests for Life"
here |
A powerful and
critically acclaimed new video documentary on Darwinism –
which proves the evolutionary theory's founder should share
with Adolph Hitler the blame for the Holocaust, as well as
for the more than 48 million American lives lost to abortion
Titled
"Darwin’s Deadly Legacy," the stunning
documentary shows that Darwinian theory, "which
is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been
responsible for more bloodshed than anything
else in the history of humanity," said Jerry
Newcomb, one of the program's two co-producers.
Before the advent of Darwinian
beliefs, said Newcombe, the Western world's
basic concept was that man was made in the image
of God, and was therefore valuable. But Darwin
changed all that.
"Karl Marx wouldn’t embrace
all (Darwin's) tenets, but said,
'This is a scientific theory on
which we can base our theory of
man,'" Newcomb told WND.
And according to Ann
Coulter, bestselling author of
"Godless: The Church of Liberalism,"
Hitler was simply taking Darwinism
from the theoretical to the
practical.
"He thought the Aryans
were the fittest and he was just
hurrying natural selection along,"
Coulter said.
Coulter is
among the experts who
appear in the special.
Others are Lee Strobel,
journalist/author of
"The Case for a
Creator," Jonathan
Wells, author of "Icons
of Evolution," Human
Genome Project Director
Francis Collins and
Richard Weikart, author
of the book "Darwin's
Deadly Legacy," on which
the program is based.
The program
also addresses eugenics,
a term coined by
Darwin’s own cousin,
Francis Galton, who
campaigned for using
human genetics as a
means to breed superior
beings.
"We talk
about the link between
Darwin and Hitler, and
in the middle ground,
eugenics," said Newcomb.
"Darwin led to eugenics,
which led directly to
Hitler."
"I was just
shocked about a week
ago, (when a news
report) talked about a
designer clinic where
you could design your
own baby. They said
everybody seems to want
perfect Aryans. Where
have we heard that?"
asked Newcomb.
"To put it
simply – no Darwin, no
Hitler," said Kennedy,
who is host for the
special. "Hitler tried
to speed up evolution,
to help it along, and
millions suffered and
died in unspeakable ways
because of it."
In the United
States, nearly three
dozen states at one
point mandated
sterilization programs
to prevent the
"feebleminded" and other
"defectives" from
reproducing.
A direct
result of that concept
is today’s Planned
Parenthood, as the
production documents,
whose founder Margaret
Sanger believed in
removing what she called
the "dead weight of
human waste."
"Eugenics is
applied Darwinism," said
Coulter.
The
culmination of that
belief system appears to
have been the Columbine
massacre. There,
students Dylan Klebold
and Eric Harris killed
12 other students, a
teacher and themselves,
after setting out on a
plan to kill 500.
"Harris wrote
on his website, 'YOU
KNOW WHAT I LOVE???
Natural SELECTION! It’s
the best thing that ever
happened to the Earth.
Getting rid of all the
stupid and weak
organisms,'" the
documentary reports.
Reports show
that on the day of the
attack, Harris wore a
T-shirt with the words,
"Natural Selection."
All this
happened, said Kennedy,
because of a set of
theories based on "a
crumbling scientific
foundation."
As
WND reported recently,
hundreds of Ph.D.
scientists are now
stepping forward and
publicly dissenting from
Darwinian theory.
|
|
|
|
See this DVD
documentary: here |
|
Are you Giving Aid to
Abortion? |
|
without even knowing it... |
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
has spent tens of millions of U.S. tax dollars to
promote so-called "reproductive rights" programs in
Third World countries.
In
2006 USAID spent $371,249,000.00 - all of it tax dollars
- for "reproductive health" programs. That's code
for abortion, sterilization, contraception and other
population control programs.
Making this situation even more desperate, USAID has
joined forces with the world's foremost proponent of
abortion, the International Planned Parenthood
Federation (IPPF).
And Planned Parenthood's own "research" organization,
the Guttmacher Institute, confirms the fact that it is
your tax dollars that are funding the world's
"population control" movement:
"The U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) has been and remains the single
largest contributor of funds for family planning and
reproductive health services worldwide. In
addition, it is the single largest donor of
contraceptives globally."
Agencies at the United Nations - funded in part by your
tax dollars - are also active promoters of abortion.
They "bribe" poor nations. They withhold funds for
food, clean water, roads, health care and other vital
needs, until developing nations implement UN programs
which promote abortion and forced sterilization.
On
top of this, billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet
and Ted Turner help finance this deadly agenda.
Turner gave over $1 million to fund UN "population
control" programs. The Bill and Linda Gates
Foundation has given IPPF over $20 BILLION!
/s/ Rev.
Thomas J. Euteneuer, President
Human Life
International
|
Vatican urges
end to Amnesty aid
13
June 2007 |
The Vatican
described abortion as "murder"
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating
money to Amnesty International, accusing the human
rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial
aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent
change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a
universal right.
But the group said that women had a right to choose,
particularly in cases of rape or incest.
"No more financing of Amnesty International after the
organization's pro-abortion about-turn," said a
statement from the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace.
'Misrepresented account'
The council's president, Cardinal Renato Martino,
described abortion as "murder".
"And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape,
that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its
mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy'," the
cardinal said.
Amnesty says it does not take any position on whether
abortion is right or wrong.
But it defended its new position in support of abortion
for women when their health is in danger or human rights
are violated, especially in cases of rape or incest.
"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's
management of their sexual reproductive right is the
wrong answer," Amnesty's deputy Secretary General Kate
Gilmore told Reuters news agency.
"The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account
of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is
placing in peril work on human rights," Ms Gilmore said.
Some 45 million unintended pregnancies are terminated
around the world every year, the World Health
Organization says.
Nearly 70,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions,
it says.
|
|
