Yesterday was the (I think, first) first day of coordinated, national protest against so-called Planned Parenthood in the Unites States.
More than 200 locations, coast to coast. The locations appear to have been (I have nosed around on the internet) generally outside of baby killing factories. Gotta love a (still; and no thanks to libtards) free Country.
“It’s chilling to see Planned Parenthood’s doctors talk about how to crush an unborn child’s body in order to most effectively procure his or her organs,”
Always nosing around, it seems to me that Catholic priests and Catholic imagery (rosary prayers; pictures of the Blessed Virgin) play an important role in this. May this continue and help spreading catholicism as it spread awareness for the astonishing Nazi mentality in millions of homes in our very Western Countries, in our very families!
Deo volente, this will grow into a deadly weapon against the Dr Goebbels of our times and their enablers and accomplices.
I was shocked, shocked at reading the criticism of Trump (he deserves other criticism, but this is for another post) for suggesting a woman who aborts her baby should be punished.
I do not remember one day of my life in which there was, in Italy, prohibition of abortion without a criminal sanction for the woman who murders her own baby. Yes, murders her own baby. Let’s say things as they are here.
The murderer of the baby is, unquestionably, her own mother. The abortionist doctor is merely the executioner. He is like a hit man. He is, in fact, literally, a hit man in a white robe. He does not know the child or his mother. He does not have any emotional connection with either. He kills on behalf of another, in order to comply with another’s desire, to have which executed the other party is ready to pay him (or her).
How there should be a planet, somewhere in the Milky Way, where the idea that murder should be punished is seen as cruel or against women is beyond me. Nor do I care that some US states apparently came, even before Roe vs Wade, to the strange conclusion that the mother is the victim, and the abortionist the only party culpable. This is pure insanity. It is like saying that Don Michael Corleone is innocent of the assassination of Fredo, and Al Neri is the only one who should be punished.
You want someone dead. You give another the task to have him killed. You, Sir (or Ma’am), are a murderer.
Nor can arguments be used which, in one way or another, relate to the difficult situation of the mother (provided it is a difficult one: the mother could be wealthy and in excellent health, and even married, which some women still are when they make children). Difficult situations can morally only be considered as extenuating circumstances; they can diminish the culpability of the woman in front of both the Lord and her earthly judge. But never, never should they be used as an excuse to erase the very act of a criminal offence that the killing of one’s own baby must necessarily be!
If a mother asks her lover to kill her twelve days old son, should we say that she is not guilty of murder? How on earth there can be a window of opportunity in which the murder of one’s own son allows her to escape a criminal offence, whilst this window closes after the child is born? In what is the dignity of the unborn baby, and his reality as an immortal soul, less worthy of criminal protection?
Or let us make another comparison.
Many people are in favour of decriminalising the use of heavy drugs (see under: “oh so poor victim”), in order to only punish the drug dealer. The arguments in favour of the situation are often heard, but they very seldom lead to legislation in this sense. Why? Because of this simple reason: that it is repugnant to the average sound man to think that the gravity of the act of taking hard drugs should remain not only unpunished, but not considered a criminal offence in the first place. If this is true for the taking of drugs, how much more should it be so for the killing of babies!
It goes on:
Woman discovers that she is pregnant. The social structures around her encourage her to see herself as (don’t make me laugh) the victim. Why shouldn’t she try to do all she can to get rid of what causes her to be a victim? What would refrain her, the poor victim, from doing all she can to find the abortionist doctor? Why should she not complain if she cannot find an abortionist, and demand that another person be legally allowed to free her from a situation in which she is the victim? How can we, in fact, even think of asking that abortion be prohibited also in case of rape, if we are ready to think in the first place that the existence of a victim allows the victim to not be culpable if she has her own baby killed?
Really, it’s too absurd for words. Most of all, it undermines the very basic of pro-life thinking: that life is sacred, and no one has the right to think he/she is in any way, shape or form exempt from the moral (and, necessarily, criminal) crime of murder if he/she kills an innocent life.
Let’s get back to the basics here. Life is a simple thing. Truth is a simple thing. There’s is no way you can “victim-ise” a mother away from her murder.
Lastly, there are the “convenience” apostles: “oh, but we must do this, in order to try to get abortion banned from the window!”
It does not work that way.
Laws follow from moral systems of rules, and it is exactly this underlying morality that keeps the laws alive, or enforced, or both. If we want to change the legislation, we must change the morality of the voters. People must be said – and must in time believe – that abortion is murder, and the only logical consequence of this is that the woman who aborts is the murderer of her own baby. That’s it. The murderer of her own baby, in her own womb. One of the most atrocious behaviours conceivable to man when I was a child has now become… being a victim?
Let us go on:
Let us imagine that such a law is passed: the mother is the victim, the abortionist paid by her is the bogeyman. How can this even work? Is here the abortionist doctor, or is he not, trying to help a victim in the way she asks him to help her? How could a judge even say: “dear doctor, I am fully sympathetic of the plight of your client; I really see the drama in front of her; but you, who have done what the victim asked you to do to help her, will have to spend the next fifteen years in jail”?. The doctors would be seen not as evil, but as helpers. Such a law would not live long. It is absurd.
We must recover the very consciousness of the atrociousness of every abortion. We cannot do this is we begin to pussyfoot around the brutal reality of the murder, instigated by the mother of the victim, which takes place. You can’t whitewash a murderer more than you could whitewash Michael Corleone. Things must be said, and they must be said in all the horrible reality of what can be, morally, nothing but the murder of a child out of the will of her own mother.
(And please don’t call the man in the equation, now. The decision is the mother’s alone. The mother can’t call herself out. I wish a woman could be forced to have a baby because the father wants so, and give him 20 years if he does not want so. Can’t even imagine the screaming of the feminazis).
The victim is the baby. The mother is his murderer. If she did not want the child, she should have been able to keep her legs shut. Children aren’t brought by the stork.
And please let us stop, as we are there, with this idea that a pregnancy be such a devastating thing for a woman. Women are made to be, one day, pregnant. They are meant to be, one day, pregnant. Every little girl knows that. Every little girl will tell you how many babies she will have. Before she knows how children are made, she knows she will have them. She perfectly well knows that this is a logical part of her life plan. Obviously, not all women will have babies. But this does not change the brutal truth of the fact: that every woman knows, from a very tender age, that having babies is a very important part of what defines her as a female.
The girl who is terrified at the idea of having a baby is not terrified of the pregnancy. She has been thinking about that since she was five. She is terrified of the pregnancy at a moment not of her choosing!
Though luck, say I. Your baby will not die because you think “the time is not right”. See above, under “legs shut”.
The past generations knew all this. Most little girl know, in a girlish way, all this.
Why moderns adults forget these simple facts of life is truly beyond me.
Pope Francis has praised Emma Bonino as a “great Italian” and has, once more, showed what a died-in-the-wool godless, secular minded person he is. Astonishingly (if we did not know him), he praised her not for any kind of, say, repentance and reform, but for her deeds.
You couldn’t make it up.
In Italy you don’t need to be “right wing” in any particular way to deeply despise the woman. A rabid feminist, who has procured countless abortions and has boasted of it, the woman was also famous for other kinds of stunts, like smoking weed in the face of policemen in order to be arrested, with the press obviously in attendance. Short of being lesbian, there is no way you could find a higher degree of aggressive bitchiness than the one that made Emma Bonino a famous character in Italy. And I ain’t sure she hasn’t tried that, too.
As she became old, the witch became more “institutional”, and a tad less insufferable. This allowed her to climb the ladders or power, to the point of becoming, inter alia, Foreign Affairs Minister. But there is no sign she has become any wiser, apart from the occasional whining about not having become a mother. In this regard I must add that the hypothetical father would have been the subject of wild speculation, then this one here is one of those feminist, “free lurv” bitches whose bitchiness did not prevent, by her own admission, a ready and very public extra marital opening of legs, even in times when such things were considered extremely shameful by your average citizen. But it’s all for the cause, you know. No doubt this queen of sluts is now the darling of a slutty generation.
Bitchy, witchy, with countless lives on her conscience, promoting the use of drugs and all sort of sexual license; and a notorious slut to boot. Is it a surprise Francis likes her so much?
No, it isn’t. Francis likes her because the two are carved out of the same wood. Francis sides, and has always sided, with the Emma Boninos of this world. He has merely chosen a more convenient way to do so as he has scrounged an entire existence out of the very institution he has always hated.
Francis is being, as so often, heretical, because it is Catholicism 101 that works without faith do not save. But Francis is also being, so to speak, heretical twice, because no sane person would associate Emma Bonino with anything else (even if now with more salon-like manners) than refusal of Catholic values and way of life.
What is all boils down to, then, is that this Royal Ass suggests to the world that evil works save. Satanic. Or, I should say, Bergoglian.
Time to depose the man.
He can’t be allowed to go on like this without creating more damage for the Church he so obviously hates.
“It’s a strange time, for sure”
“For whatever reason we’ll accept the money”
in the wake of the series of utterly revolting videos explaining the depth of the evil at Planned Genocide, this article from Live Action News has – besides the already known quotes from Margaret Sanger; I have already written something about the woman – two videos. I would like here to direct your attention on the second; unfortunately, I could not post it directly here on the page.
In the video, a man calls Planned Genocide and says he wants to donate an abortion of a black child, because he is (clearly) White and against affirmative action, fearing that his own child might one day be disadvantaged.
Four calls are recorded: three of the answers are noted above, the fourth woman (they were all women, by the way; I smell “gender discrimination” here) keeps the conversation neutral but still gladly accept the donation knowing it is made with the stated aim to help killing Blacks in a legal way.
Well, if you thought the atrocious videos are only (cough) isolated episodes, and extreme examples that do not reflect the activity of Planned Genocide, this short video shows you’ll have to face reality: racism of the most brutal, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population” (© Margaret Sanger, 1939) sort is alive and kicking in 2015 Planned Genocide.
Think of this: if the KKK were still alive (I mean, as a meaningful entity) and they were jamming the phone lines asking to be able to make donations with the explicit, stated intent of having as few Blacks born as possible, they would receive answers like “understandable, understandable”, “It’s a strange time, for sure” and “For whatever reason we’ll accept the money”.
Don’t miss the populist tweets at the beginning. They are precious.
The wrong side does not miss an occasion to unleash hell for their own purposes. Remember the young woman who died in Ireland and prompted calls to introduce abortion? What about the wave of laws restricting individual freedoms after Sandy Hook? Or the present crusade against the Confederate Flag?
Atheists and liberals never let an occasion go to waste. In comparison, we are far too kind.
The recent wave of emotion concerning the beastly behaviour of Planned Parenthood (oh, they say now they were not selling body parts. I am waiting for the details. Can't imagine they did not expect some sort of advantage anyway; this, without considering the satanical behaviour in itself) should be used not only to attack Planned Parenthood, but to demand loud and clear the end of abortion, call Nazi butchers those who practice it, and invent all kind of neologisms like “baby-hater”, “babyphobe”, Nazi Butchers, and the like. Every time, all the time.
What happens of this? Not much. Planned Parenthood will be in some trouble for a while, but the occasion for a big wave of emotions will be lost. Imagine if a row of prominent U.S. senators had profited of this to openly ask the end of abortion. It would not happen overnight, of course; but it would put us on the offensive, and with the emotional wave on our side. Little by little, people would begin to sway.
People don't think much nowadays. Many of them mainly emote, and do so with a view of feeling good with themselves.
We should profit from the enemy's own goals much more than we are doing. We should use them to aim directly at the beast's heart, rather than merely aim at give the enemy a thrashing.
As the enemy invents a new vocabulary to insult us, we cannot go beyond polite remonstrations.
Call them names. Rouse emotions. Attack abortion directly and frontally.
We lose because we are too nice.
To a European, articles like this appear entirely surreal.
I understand from it that the following applies:
1. Abortions clinic were free to operate with standards that are below those generally required in the medical profession.
2. This was challenged by pro-life group because of the desire to protect the women’s health, actually one of the stated aims of the feminazis promoting abortion.
3. The Court of Appeal decided that yeah, abortion mills must be run with the same standards as “other” “medical” facilities. Duh?
4. The desire to protect the women’s health is a great scandal for abortionist, and the matter is now expected to land in front of the Supreme Court.
5. The mere requirement to meet the minimum standards observed by all other doctors was sufficient to force four fifths of the structures to close.
I am glad such small steps are made, and welcome every event that makes abortion mills shut down. But honestly, I cannot imagine that in time the number of abortion mills in Texas will not go back to (un)normal even if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeal, and the standard of medical decency are required everywhere in the US. In the end, the end of abortion goes through its ban, not through its becoming more expensive.
Still, this is good news not only because it shows a good battle fought with intelligence and the very weapon of the enemy, but also the hypocrisy and cynicism of the “reproductive health” bull.
Texas is, I am told, also the State now planning to re-introduce open carry.
They get better and better.
If there was a Turncoat World Championship, I think Michael Coren would be a prime candidate for the win, several times in a row. I now begin breakfast wondering whether Coren will still have the same religious affiliation when I finish it. As to his statements, they can slowly be read with a chronometer at hand, measuring the time until he states the exact opposite.
Coren has long joined the long list of Judases of the Catholic faith, but this one has an uncommon satanic energy. The man is sheer unbelievable. He writes a book about Catholics being right, and then leaves the Catholic faith. But he doesn’t say it out loud around, because it’s professionally more lucrative to shut up for a while.
Interestingly, the same man who had defended the Catholic church as the bearer of a Truth that goes beyond individual opinion then proceeds to leave the Church because – says his newly found god, called Michael Coren – the Church is now suddenly wrong. Not, mind, wrong on whether vanilla is better than chocolate. No. Wrong on something the Church has always believed, which is unquestionably part of the Deposit of Faith: sexual perversion.
What kind of man is this? A circus attraction?
Coren now even manages to be kicked out of a wannabe Catholic publication because … he is in favour of abortion!
I am sorry for you, my dear baby. Your father was a rapist, so you (not your father, no; I mean you; yes, you heard me right; I know, I know…; though luck, uh?) will now have to die. Pre-breakfast Michael Coren was, as a Catholic, resolutely opposed to your legalised killing. But that was before breakfast, you see. Post-breakfast Michael Coren thinks you will have to go. Mind, though: your killing is what Michael Coren’s newfound god (called, in case you don’t know, Michael Coren) thinks “compassionate”.
Can you believe this guy? Is he on cocaine? How could he allow himself to be same-sex loved by Satan in such a way, after certainly having been able to fully understand the Catholic message? I know journalism and prostitution are related professions, but this here is extreme. It is first class turn coat excellence. Coren doesn’t contradict himself simply. He must do so in the loudest of ways, and he must still say he is right!
Right… when, exactly? At 10:22 am as a pro-life, pro-sexual sanity Catholic, or at 4:55 pm as a fag-loving, pro-abortion Anglican?
Boy, this one is confused.
If one thing should become clear to our inept hierarchy in the dramatic times we are living, it is that “cultural Catholicism” has a limited shelf life of one generation, one and a half at most.
Grandma, born in 1920, was deeply rooted in Catholicism. Catholicism shaped her entire life. Daughter, born in 1950, was much different, but you might not seen very much of it in daily life. There were big differences on several issues, but even Grandma would have called Daughter a Christian, albeit a bad one.
Granddaughter was born in 1980. The values her mother shared never meant much to her. Her mother had a vague feeling that they were good, but she could never really articulate why. She was, herself, not entirely in agreement with her mother on a number of issues; therefore, the granddaughter thought it perfectly legitimate that she also does the same.
Daughter's “cultural Catholicism” consisted in receiving what is comfortable and understood and rejecting what is seriously inconvenient; but granddaughter does not understand why she should accept positions her mother cannot defend herself, and to her everything that causes the slightest riff with her girlfriends is highly inconvenient. The mini m common denomitor is her religion, a vague “goodness” that murders children, but feels very holy.
Grandmothher managed to get to Purgatory. Daughter's fate is far more uncertain. Granddaughter's cards are frankly – unless there is radical change – horrible.
Cultural Catholicism survives for some decades as a fallout of saner times. For one generation or so you will have an army of people who still share much of the building of Catholic values, but do not understand why the building stands in the first place. The following generation will find it more practical, or even moral, to tear the whole building down. It can be as fast as that.
Old people die, young people reach voting age. Your bishop may think the fundamental fabric of Catholicism will remain, but he is a fool. As the old people die, the “why” of things get lost, because the priest prefers to speak like a politician or a social worker, rather than a priest. One generation will do a lot of what was traditionally done without really knowing why; the following one will refuse the doing altogether.
An astonishingly inept (or worse!) clergy thought, all over Southern Europe, that cultural traditions would do for them the work they never had the guts to do. But cultural traditions die in the end, if no one can articulate why they are cherished. The funerals of the old people bury them too, slowly but irresistibly. Unless things change radically, it is only a matter of time before Italy goes to way of Ireland.
In this utter squalor, and in this climate of bankruptcy in many European Countries, we are waiting for the next encyclical of the Evil Clown.
Dedicated to… the environment.
Every now and then, the Unholy Father says a word or two about abortion. It never is a real frontal attack, because apparently we all know he is a son of the Church so why talk like a Pope; but at least it is something.
The problem with that is that the radical Neopagan ideology of the man makes his words sound hollow – or rather, appear hypocritical and no more than a fig leaf – even when he happens to say something which, in itself, is right.
Francis has been aggressively promoting the new “religion of mercy” for months now, and more aggressively so since the slap he got in October. This new, continuously promoted alternative religion has no place for God's justice, at least for the almost totality of people of whatever faith and none. If God cannot be imagined as doing more than slapping us on the wrist, every kind of crime will ultimately be unpunished. If atheists are saved if they follow their conscience, faith as a necessary ordinary requirement – together with work – for salvation is completely forgotten. If God is “in love with us”, the relationship between the Creator and His creatures that is so emotionally evoked is not the one of a loving, but when necessary severe father, but the one of a sixteen years old girl upon beholding the young man of her dreams.
Besides being profoundly heathenish, this thinking kills babies.
In this kind of New Age, “We Are All So Wonderful And Unconditionaly Loved” pretend religion there is no sanction whatever for being Stalin, much less for the murder of an unborn child. Everything is wonderfully aimed at a wonderful final destination upon reaching which we will know in what wonderful ways God wonderfully provided for all the people we have aborted, or gassed, whilst following our conscience or, more simply, whilst being a tad naughty and getting a slap on the wrist. God, who is so madly in love with us, will always forgive us everything, so why worry? And actually, who is everyone to judge?
This is what kills unborn babies. This refusal to put a woman in front of the atrocity of what she is about to commit, and to the terrible pain of hell that following one's “conscience” can easily lead to, is all Satan needs in order to whisper to the mother that there is nothing to be worried about, her murdered baby “will be fine” because “God is Lurv”, and she will obviously be fine because she follows her wonderful conscience where the Spirit leads her.
In the age of mercy, an holocaust of unborn children produces nothing but… mercy. If Hitler had been a woman he could have imagined all those millions Jews happily basking in the grace of God, and would have died believing himself a saint. On a smaller scale, many feminist and dissenting nuns do exactly the same; only, they do not dispose of their own Vernichtungsmaschine and must be content with accompanying – morally or physically – young mothers to the slaughterhouse of their own babies.
Francis does, in a slightly subtler way, exactly the same. His blabbering about a mercy deprived of justice is an open invitation to every kind of selfish cruelty, an “all you can sin” buffet without even the digestion problems, a new religion that makes a mockery not only of God, but of the very concept of religion.
Next time Francis says a line or two about abortion, use it to be reminded which side's work he is making.
Watch here a video I found on my newly re-found Facebook page. I had seen footage of the latest march in Washington, but some parts of this throw, I think, an entirely different light on the entire matter.
Please also note the banners with the Blessed Virgin.
Imagine the embarrassment of the mainstream media at this footage. Huge crowds, Blessed Virgin banners, lots of families with young children. Tell the world of such a massive event? No! No! No!
Every damn “gay” parade would obviously get coverage, but not this, not this!
Heck, this is an embarrassment for the Bishop of Rome himself! All these people obsessed with abortion! Why did they not adopt an illegal immigrant instead?
Still: this is very, very encouraging. The more so, because it happens notwithstanding the neglect of the media and against the current “climate” in the Vatican, where even perverts are welcome.
And those banners of the Blessed Virgin, in Washington, in the middle of a very big march, they truly made my day.
In a very small whiff of fresh air in the stench in which we are living, Pope Francis has said two or three things which really sound Catholic. Look at the Patheos crowd delighting in being able to tell themselves the Pope is orthodox, after having waited 12 hours for the broken clock to show the right time.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s as bad as that: Francis must only say a couple of words vaguely resembling Catholicism every couple of months, and the enthusiastic following of the blind is assured to him.
The words aren’t even so strong, not by any standard of even V II Popes. From what I could read he does not give strong warnings, merely some words of encouragement on abortion, and some very veiled words against so-called “same sex marriage”. There is no mention of murder of the unborn, no mention of dangers for the soul. And it’s clear this Pope mentions dangers for the soul anytime this is convenient to his agenda (mafiosi, capitalists, or even honest churchgoers who are “dead inside”).
I have read no mention of “culture of death”; no mention of hell, Satan, punishment. He praises a very weak Pope, and shows even in his “strongest” moments he can’t manage to be stronger than Pope Paul VI in his lack of decisiveness and incisiveness, basically having one encyclical to show for 13 years of disastrous Pontificate.
The mention of so-called same-sex marriage is so veiled it can’t even be safely attributed to the topic, in another show of blatant Jesuitism. Even those rare words of Catholic sanity (requested, I think, from the local clergy because of the recent confrontation about contraception) are a very poor show. But hey, the Pollyannas happily eat excrements every day. Give them tofu once, they’ ll think it’s tiramisu’.
Lastly, let me measure this Pope with his own, very famous words: if the contracepting and faggot-marrying Philipinos are in good faith, and seek the Lord, and follow their conscience, who is he to judge?
The man destroys the very basis of Catholicism. Then people praise him when he happens to say something resembling it. Which, for heaven’s sake, even Satan himself could and would do.
The Duchess of Cambridge has been diagnosed with another clump of cells.
It is thought the clump will not be removed, albeit it is making the Duchess sick rather often.
If the removal of the clump does not take place, it is widely believed this clump of cells will gradually grow inside the host. At some point next Spring, the clump of cells will expel itself from the host. The process generally goes under the popular name of “birth”. After the self-expulsion, the clump of cells will, if its heart beats, legally become a human being and be entitled to various rights; like, for example, the one not to be thrown in the bin with other clumps of cells, who were removed from the host in order the prevent the self-expulsion process from taking place. .
Now, let us see if this is the way the generally oh so liberal BBC looks at it. Let me look…
yes… it’s here…
hhhmmm…what is this?
“Expecting a second child”
“Yet unborn girl or boy”
Look, it appears even the satanic buggers at the Buggers Broadcasting Communism get it: a baby in the womb is… a baby. Entitled to be considered a human being, a human life, one of us, even if not yet born. He is, already, a child. He is, in fact, an “unborn girl or boy”.
Is it so difficult, you satanic buggers? What is in this that needs an effort of understanding?
It’s a baby. It’s a baby. It’s a baby. You say it yourselves, several times. You find it utterly natural to say so, exactly as everyone else. You employ the same language of common sense that has always been used, and corresponds to a most obvious reality.
Why, then, do you forget this obvious reality when the victim of your abominable thinking is not the baby of a Duchess, but a poor baby in the womb of an unknown young woman? Why the first is considered, to all intents and purposes, a human being, and the other not?
It’s because you are satanic buggers.
Apparently, Pope Francis has made a “strong”, “silent statement” against abortion because he… stopped in front of a monument to aborted children in Korea. He even – we are told – “bowed his head in prayer” before the monument; which is rather big news because, as far as I know, it is more than he does in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Again, it turns out this Pope is never weary of doing what is comfortable on the moment, provided he does not land in an uncomfortable position himself. Short of speaking sternly against abortion and become a clear target of the liberal masses from which he wants to be adored, he will do whatever it takes whenever it is convenient.
Hhmm…let us see…
Today is Saturday.
I wonder if I should not gather one or two buddies and go to Stringfellow’s, or to another such establishment where rather fetching professional strippers exercise their trade.
After which I could always “bow my head” before, say, the statue of Thomas More in Chelsea.
It would clearly be a “strong, silent statement” against strip clubs, wouldn’t it now?