Skip to content

Up Close and Personal: An Order of Nuns Sees Middle East Persecution First-Hand

Down
-This article was originally published at Stream.

More than 150 years ago, an order of nuns began to spread the Word of God in Egypt. Now, despite being targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013, and facing persecution elsewhere, The Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are continuing their mission.

“Our charism,” says Sister Dorothy Aloisio, is “to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, our Crucified Spouse, naked and abandoned on the cross, in Him to be sent for the conversion of people beyond the seas.”

“It was on September 14, 1859, feast of the Triumph of the Cross, that the first female Italian missionaries landed in the land of Pharaoh,” Sister Dorothy told The Stream. “Cairo was the field of Mother Catherine’s apostolate and the radiant center of her zeal. Very quickly, many other Egyptian villages experienced the good effects of the ‘White Mother,’ as she was called.”

“In this way, the first female Italian Missionary Congregation in Egypt was born. Soon it spread to other countries and continents,” she explained.

The order was formally founded in 1868*, when it received the approval of the Holy See. Mother Catherine died 19 years later, in 1887, and was beatified by Saint Pope John Paul II 98 years after her death.

While only six sisters left Italy, the order now has approximately 500 nuns worldwide, often surrounded by poverty, persecution and corruption. Despite their focus on helping the poor, the sisters were targeted as part of a string of attacks against Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 2013. Their school was burned down — this video appears to show that attack — though the sisters survived.

“The difficulties that Arab nations face,” said Sister Dorothy, “not including Egypt, which is a Republic, are that they are not accustomed to democracy because they have never had it. Many rulers are considered to be dictators. That is all they know.”

“In Syria, people are leaving in droves because they don’t feel safe, and young people are leaving because they see no future,” she explained. “Our cook in Damascus — a bomb fell on her house killing her and leaving her young children orphaned. Innocent people have to pay the ultimate price for the wars. The politicians only think of themselves and not the everyday citizen.”

“Egypt, which is a Republic, is considered the ‘Cultural Mother of the Arab World,’” said Sister Dorothy. “It is an educated population, so it did not accept the dictator, which is why the Egyptians demonstrated to overthrow Mohamed Morsi when he became president. He was already taking steps to become a dictator.”

“It was the Muslim Brotherhood who burnt our school in Beni Suef, [though] the majority of Muslims and Christians live together without great problems and peacefully.”

“In Syria, the Christians are being persecuted because they are Christians. So many of them are fleeing in any way they can. They are saying, ‘I have a 20% chance of living if I leave by boat, but if I stay I have a 100% chance of dying.’”

“To stay alive, Christians need to pay a tax so they will be ‘protected,’ or they need to convert to Islam.”

Sister Dorothy is one of just six sisters in the U.S. However, the order is thriving in other nations, despite the anti-Christian persecution. “Vocations are decreasing where God is not as present in society and in the lives of the people,” she explained. “We are listening to many other ‘voices’ than to listen to the voice of God calling many young people to the priesthood and religious life.  With less material things and distractions, it is easier to hear God’s calling and to respond with the gift of self.”

Asked how her order is able to maintain its faith and vigor in the face of enormous challenges, Sister Dorothy says simply: “The three most effective ways are:  prayer, strong community life, and faithfulness to our charism.”

Sister Dorothy says her sisters “in the mission lands” say that conversions happen when the nuns “continue to give material assistance while at the same time trying to educate them in spiritual assistance. … [E]specially in very poor areas. … The Sisters rejoice when a baptism takes place, and later on the person perhaps becomes a catechist or a helper in the mission territory.”

Despite the persecution of the sisters and many other Christians, there is also hope — and not just after death.This May 2014 blog post at Copts United reports that the Egyptian military has rebuilt the gutted school.

“The process of restoration and rehabilitation of the school is almost done, after It was completely demolished by fire as supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group prevented fire trucks from quenching the fire,” says the post, which puts the cost of rebuilding at 16 million Egyptian pounds, or more than two million U.S. dollars.

[* Corrects a typo that incorrectly presented the year the order was founded as 1968 rather than 1868.]

Alabama official: We trust Planned Parenthood to report minors having abortions—even though they didn’t

WD
-The article was originally published at Lifesite News.

MOBILE, AL, August 31, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) — Alabama health officials gave a Planned Parenthood clinic the lightest possible punishment for not reporting that a 14-year-old had two abortions in four months — in part because state officials trust clinic employees acted in good faith.

A state employee who explained this in detail to LifeSiteNews also asked that coverage of the situation be framed in order to protect the Department of Public Health from “a lot of attacks from the anti-abortion people.”

On November 21, 2014, an annual inspection of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Mobile, Alabama discovered clinic employees had not reported the teenager’s abortions, in violation of state law. After meeting with Planned Parenthood’s senior management, state officials ordered the clinic to “look at their policies and procedures, and see if there’s a need to change the way they look at 14-year-old patients who present for abortion and ensure they report anyone that even possibly might fall into the situation of sexual exploitation.”

After meeting with state officials, the clinic formally reported the 14-year-old’s abortions. The state’s Department of Public Health write-up of the investigation noted that patient MR #16 had an abortion on April 9, 2014, and a second abortion on August 18, 2014.

The response is the lowest of four possible punishments that could have been leveled against the clinic. According to an official who spoke with LifeSiteNews, this was because the Department of Public Health believed Planned Parenthood officials who said they had investigated the 14-year-old’s background and determined that she was not being abused.

“We do not have a series of step-wise fines and penalties that can be implemented against a facility,” said the official. Instead, the state relies on license forfeiture threats to ensure facilities follow regulations. The next level of punishment would have been a one-year probationary period for the clinic, and the third “standard” response would have involved the state going to a probationary officer to pull the clinic’s license, something the clinic could have fought in court.

There is a fourth level of reaction that the official said is only used “about three or four times a year, usually for assisted living” facilities. That option allows the state to immediately pull a facility’s license and take the owners to court. That level of response is only for when state officials decide that “there is a real, current, present danger to life, health, and safety of a resident,” and immediate closure is ordered. These types of decisions are usually not challenged by facilities.

Planned Parenthood clinics across America have been caught violating state reporting laws in videos recorded by undercover investigators working with Live Action. In 2008, a Birmingham clinic counselor told Live Action founder Lila Rosethat “as long as you consented to having sex with [an allegedly 31-year old boyfriend], there’s nothing we can truly do about that.”

Rose, who was pretending to be a 14-year old girl, was told that information “stays within these walls,” and was encouraged to falsify parental consent.

That investigation led to a state investigation and probation for the clinic.

Kristi Hamrick, Communications Director for Americans United for Life, told LifeSiteNews that “the nation’s number one provider of abortions has a pattern of failing to report possible abuses and sexual crimes to authorities. Young girls should not be victimized twice, first by an abuser and then by a cold-hearted abortion salesperson willing to turn a blind eye to possible crimes.”

In speaking with LifeSiteNews about the most recent violation, the Public Health official asked LifeSiteNews to frame the violations and the punishment in a way that benefited state officials and Planned Parenthood. The official said that it “would be much better” if LifeSiteNews “could word [the situation] in a way that [Planned Parenthood] had considered the possibility [of abuse] but simply hadn’t reported it, and after review with senior management, they are revising their policies, and they did report it, and they will report similar instances in the future.”

A prior description of the investigation and punishment was described as “true,” but also as one that could cause the Department of Public Health to “come under a lot of attacks from the anti-abortion people.”

LifeSiteNews further clarified that “essentially, your department was satisfied they had acted in good faith, and not intentionally hid this information from DHR.”

“That’s right,” said the official.

Feds Blackmail Virginia’s Largest School District Into Transgender Policy

WD
-The article was originally published at The Federalist.

-Feds Blackmail Virginia’s Largest School District Into Transgender Policy

Since 2009, the Obama administration has expanded upon the power-grabbing traditions of its predecessors. Whether it’s with health care—Lyndon B. Johnson would be proud—the Environmental Protection Agency—Richard Nixon’s creation—or changing the definition of “religious liberty” to fit its ideologies, the administration has overstepped its constitutional bounds in ways almost too numerous to count.

Which brings us to May 7, and the Fairfax County, Virginia school board meeting where board members bowed to U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) bullying: Unless the board approved special treatment for transgendered students and teachers, the state’s largest school district would lose $42 million in federal funding.

This pressure, to which the board members acquiesced, reveals how federal funding is a bit in every school’s mouth, which allows unelected bureaucrats to decide essentially anything they want about what happens to your child in school.

It was followed just four days later by a recommendation that the board add similar changes to the mental health and sexual education programs for kids as early as seventh grade, and expand support for contraceptive drugs and devices, which could include the same abortifacients found in the Obamacare mandate.

What Happened in Fairfax

On May 7, hundreds of parents packed a Fairfax County auditorium to standing room only, with overflow of at least 100 people outside the room. They were outraged that the school board was going to make “gender identity” a protected class, equal to protecting people from discrimination based upon race and sex.

The consequences of the board’s decision are clear: Boys who think or feel they are girls will be allowed to use restrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex. If the board follows the example of Minnesota, schools would have to accommodate male transgendered students who want to spend nights at travel games in hotel rooms with female athletes.

Board members argued they had to make the change to be fair to transgender children and comply with federal demands. As I wrote at LifeSiteNews shortly after attending the meeting:

The change was preceded by a legal opinion from Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, who in March said that school boards have the authority to include sexual orientation and gender identity as special classes. But it was the threat of a loss of federal education dollars that provided the impetus for several school board members.

President Obama’s threat to deny children federal money was in keeping with his administration’s new interpretation of the 1972 Title IX law.

Last April, the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights decided that gender identity is a protected class, and that Title IX, which only bars sexual discrimination, will now be treated as though it ‘extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.’

But neither the U.S. Constitution nor prior case law requires school boards to make these changes, said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Casey Mattox, whose children attend Fairfax schools. Citing a recent court case in a short presentation to the board, “There’s absolutely nothing behind [these federal demands],” said Mattox. “They’re bluffing.”

Speaking with me as he left the meeting, Mattox said that while the administration says it is attempting to protect students from bullying and other ill treatment, the threat of reduced federal education dollars is itself bullying. Denying $42 million, which is 1.7 percent of the district’s budget, to the district is what bullies do, he said, comparing the tactic to taking student lunch money.

Despite opposition from most in attendance, board members chose to pass the “gender identity” protections 10-1, with one person abstaining. Numerous board members accused opponents of acting out of “fear,” and many made comparisons to slavery and the pre-Civil Rights era. After the meeting, a LGBT activist told me that “if people really clung to these things, we’d still have slavery, women still wouldn’t have the right to vote.”

Several board members said enabling gender identity crises would change “nothing” in the district, which led to loud booing and other vocal anger from parents, who asked why any change was needed if students already felt safe in the district.

After the vote, which board member Elizabeth Schultz left in protest, the board created a committee to investigate how to implement the change. Schultz, the sole board member to oppose the change, pointed out to me that “[implementation] happens at the end of September. What difference does it make if you say you want to look at the regulations then?” She and many parents had urged the board to consider possible consequences and regulations prior to any implementation. The board chose to do the opposite.

What about the Rights of Children and Parents?

According to the school board and the Obama administration, children and adults have the right to choose their gender identity with no accompanying questions, contradictions, or ill effects.

However, as Mattox pointed out, gender identity “rights” have no basis in America’s legal or constitutional history. Furthermore, while board members say they are attempting to protect children with gender dysphoria—a mental disorder—they made no provisions for protecting the privacy and emotional security of the well over 99 percent of students who do not challenge their biology.
They made no provisions for protecting the privacy and emotional security of the well over 99 percent of students who do not challenge their biology.

The likelihood of sexual harassment or sexual assault by transgendered students is probably less than conservatives believe, but it is a reality politicians and bureaucrats ignore. Another problem is the incorrect understanding about gender, morality, and family structure such policies will engender—social engineering that is a clear priority of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policies.

And we haven’t even touched on the misplaced priority of the administration and the school board in thinking that society should encourage someone suffering from gender dysphoria to flaunt their disorder before dozens if not hundreds of other students.

Forcing such questions on young children further strips parents’ rights as the primary educators and morality teachers of their children. Once gender identity is considered equal to race and sex, parents who oppose exposing their young children to the politically correct but biologically false version of gender fluidity will be identified as bigots and haters. They will be told they must place their children in courses and seminars that teach a disordered sense of sexuality and sexual morality.

Likewise, the expanded concept of what one activist calls “gender fluidity” in Fairfax’s sexual education programs will force parents to either pull their children out of courses—alienating them from their classmates—or allow a scientifically unproven sense of sexuality to be impressed upon their children.

Increasing Federal Overreach Into Schools

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations convinced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 from 18 by threatening to withhold highway funding. The Obama administration is doing the same by threatening to pull money from Fairfax and other school boards if they do not fall in line.

This is problematic for multiple reasons. First, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall: “The federal Department of Education has spent the past three decades taxing states, running that money through the Washington bureaucracy, and sending it back to states and school districts. But for 30 years, this spending cycle has failed to improve education.”

Since its creation in 1980 by President Carter, USDOE has sucked an increasing number of dollars from U.S. taxpayers with little to no results to show for it. As federal control of education has increased, the quality of education has decreased.

While there is no perfect way to estimate the cost of the shoddy education system wrought by the oversized federal bureaucracy, Marshall cited a study noting as much as one-sixth of federal education dollars could be wasted on bureaucratic inefficiency. As noted by a Cato Institute scholar in 2009, mismanagement is a core part of the federal education system, because it is a system designed to oversee programs, not actually teach children.

Government puts another gun to taxpayers’ heads to force them to take back money the government forcibly took from them, with objectionable mandates attached.

The second problem with the federal government’s intrusion into education is what someone told me after the Fairfax board meeting: first, government puts the proverbial gun to the heads of taxpayers to take their money. Then, it puts another gun to taxpayers’ heads to force them to take back money the government forcibly took from them, with objectionable mandates attached.

A third problem is something Schultz identified in our brief chat. She noted that Title IX was created in 1972 to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex, and that lawmakers did not consider transgender issues when composing the law. Like others, she points out that by changing its interpretation of Title IX, the Obama administration is vastly overstepping the law itself.

Reject the 400-Pound Federal Gorilla

Whether you support federal involvement in education, or whether you prefer to follow the Constitution and leave education funding and policy to states and localities, it is clear that federal involvement in education is, in its current state, increasingly inefficient, expensive, overbearing, and—dare I say it—bullying.

Likewise, whether you are a libertarian who thinks social conservatives are statists, or a social conservative who believes the rights of parents and religious liberty are paramount, what is happening in Fairfax and across the country should cause you to link arms.

For decades, the gay “marriage” movement claimed it merely wanted tolerance and respect from its cultural opponents. Now that America is on the verge of accepting redefining marriage and negating human biology, two long-ago predicted results are taking place. The first is state-sponsored discrimination against Christians—seen in California, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and many other states, against bakers, florists, etc.—and the second is expansion of the gay “rights” movement to other areas of cultural redefinition.

Supporters of religious liberty, equality under the law, and local control of government ought to partner against the forces of tyrannical government and moral irrelevance. Otherwise, we will see liberty and equality destroyed with even more unconstitutional blackmail from this administration and others.

Five Reasons Tennessee’s New Gun Law Should Be Repealed

WD
-The article was originally published at The Daily Caller.

Earlier this week, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed a bill that would allow employees to bring guns to workplace parking lots as long as the weapons are kept in their vehicles — regardless of the policies of an employer.

According to Cade Cothren, the senior press person for the Tennessee House of Representatives, the law — which is meant to clarify a similar measure signed into law in 2013 — tries to balance employer property rights with the property and Second Amendment rights of employees.

Unfortunately, all the law did was use government force to give priority to employees over employers.

Here are a few of the arguments going around about this law:

Cothren explained to me that, “we recognize that there’s a fine balance between property rights and Second Amendment rights. [Republicans] agree that everyone should have as broad both property rights and Second Amendment rights as possible, but sometimes you do have to work to balance the two, and in a situation like this, that’s exactly what came into play.”

In other words, Tennessee Republicans decided that the Second Amendment rights of employees have priority over the property rights of employers.

Second, this violates the idea that government should, for the most part, let private actors handle their own issues. Like the Obama administration’s abortifacient, sterilization, and contraception mandate, however, the Tennessee government has unnecessarily decided to declare that employees have rights to employer property.

This is also reminiscent of recent attempts by homosexual militants and their allies to force business owners to participate in ceremonies they disagree with — again, using government mandates to interfere with the private, independent decisions of business owners.

Third, defenders of the law are using a very fine distinction for when property rights should be respected. According to Cade Cothren, the senior press person for the Tennessee House, the area for general parking is “a public parking lot for all employees.”

“If the employer chose to ban guns in the place of work, they certainly can do that,” said Cothren. “We would agree with that 100 percent. But because the parking lot itself is more of a public parking lot, and those vehicles are the personal property of that driver, it makes in that case to allow these guns to be brought on to the parking lot without fear” of consequences from an employer.

Cothren’s point, however fails to acknowledge that the location where work is taking place is also “for all employees” — so what’s to stop the legislature from forcing employers to allow weapons at employee desks?

As with most times that government steps in where it shouldn’t, Haslam and the GOP legislature do have a couple of points in their favor. For example, while I fail to see a distinction between the parking lot owned by an employer and the building one works in that is owned by an employer, it is also arguable that people are not “on the clock” when they are parking to come to work, and thus the employer ought not to have sway over what happens on the way in.

Another partially solid point is the idea that a car is the property of the employee, and is autonomous of the employer — in the same way an officer has to ask to search your car, no employer would have the right to search one’s car to try and find a gun brought on the property against the rules.

However, both of these points fail the “reasonable government intervention” test. Simply put, if an employee doesn’t like the company’s policy, that person can leave employment. Furthermore, under the principles of liberty, a human being is the most autonomous thing on the planet. If a car is autonomous when it comes to holding a weapon, shouldn’t a person be even more autonomous — and, thus, weapons should be allowed anywhere, at any time, while at work.

For the record, I don’t necessarily agree with an employer banning guns on the job, or with an employee being fired for having such a weapon on the work campus. However, my opinion is irrelevant, as is that of Cothren, Haslam, and anyone else not directly involved in the negotiations between employees or employers.

The real issue is the principle of liberty. A business owner should have the liberty to serve whomever he or she wishes, and a customer can take it, leave it, or boycott it. Likewise, should my employer not allow Bibles on campus, I — an orthodox Catholic — can either accept that policy, negotiate to change it, or work elsewhere.

As is too common at all levels of government in the United States, the Republican political leadership of Tennessee has overstepped its bounds, and — like the Obama administration and homosexual activists — is using the power of government to give preference when there should be none.

 

Boehner’s latest budget stunt shows his fiscal conservatism was always just words

WD
-The article was originally published at Rare.

On Friday, Politico described House Speaker John Boehner as having “defied conservatives” and “gone bold on [the] budget.”

And just what did the speaker do that was “fearless before danger,” “intrepid,” “showing or requiring a fearless, daring spirit?”

He pulled a legislative maneuver to pass the House Budget Committee resolution that will result in $20 billion being added to the federal debt, and is pushing for a “doc fix” that will add over $100 billion more.

Though the “doc fix” initiative is still being figured out, the dishonest budget maneuver worked:

After Boehner and other leaders huddled with Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Armed Services Committee Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) for an hour on Thursday morning, leadership went with another plan — move the resolution through the Budget panel first without the additional defense money, and then add the Pentagon funding back via the Rules Committee, before the proposal hits the House floor next week.

Disappointingly, reputed fiscal conservatives like Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, and Price stood by it:

Price was then able to pass the budget resolution through his panel with unanimous GOP support, and united Democratic opposition. The vote was 22-13.

While I would like to have sympathy for Boehner — politically, he’s in a tough spot — this latest stunt is just more evidence that claims to his fiscal conservatism are just words.

The House Budget Committee’s resolution doesn’t start reforming Medicare for years. It completely ignores Social Security reform, expands the Defense Department’s overseas slush fund, and is weak on tax reform, the elimination of corporate welfare, and other important areas of necessary change.

It’s also problematic that Price, who has a fiscally conservative reputation and voting record, let this sort of thing happen in his committee.

I have some pity for the speaker; I sure wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. He’s a moderate who has to deal with a variety of political realities, including the likelihood that Senate Democrats will gum up the budget process (as they did from 2010 to 2014), House military hawks who seem to think throwing money at the Department of Defense is responsible governance, and a media that can’t wait to declare that Republicans can’t govern.

Alas, none of that justifies Boehner’s transparent willingness to throw proper governance and fiscal sanity out the window. Rather than take up substantive budget cuts and reforms, he pulled a bait-and-switch.

Perhaps worst of all, by voting for the resolution, conservatives on the Budget Committee gave Boehner their explicit support for this oddly transparent sleight-of-hand. Which indicates more problems may be on the horizon.

Dick Durbin Built A Wall For Estrada And Gonzales, Shoved Condi Rice To The Back Of The Bus

WD
-The article was originally published at The Daily Caller.

Ah, politics. Such a lovely game of egos, manipulation of facts, and dishonesty.

Remember when the Senate fought and successfully stopped the president’s judicial nominee over his ethnicity? They didn’t claim racism, of course — instead, a memo said they merely opposed his nomination because being Hispanic would give the president and his party electoral and judicial advantage.

But we all know the reason. Ethnicism and racism were clearly the motives.

That was back in 2001, when Senator Dick Durbin and other Democrats stopped Miguel Estrada from becoming a judge. They feared his possible nomination to the Supreme Court, as well as the public image of a Republican nominating a Hispanic.

That’s not the only time when a minority nominee of Bush’s was vociferously opposed by Durbin, however. There was also the time Durbin opposed the nomination of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State, and he was a key figure in opposing Bush’s Hispanic nominee for Attorney General — Alberto Gonzales.

I would never argue, of course, that Senator Durbin was being racist in his opposition. That would be presumptuous mind-reading, as well as an uncharitable assessment of why a Democrat might have legitimate political, philosophical, and policy reasons to oppose the nominee of a president of the other party.

But in light of Durbin’s recent comments about Republicans allegedly forcing President Obama’s Attorney General nominee, Loretta Lynch, “to sit in the back of the bus,” it is only logical to assume that Durbin’s view on race has changed dramatically in just one presidential administration.

Or maybe he was just playing politics then, and is playing politics now. Which is almost certainly the case — and also why the media should have never reported his comments about Lynch.

After all, what educational or government watchdog value does reporting Durbin’s comments bring? All it does is provide more evidence that mainstream media is just another arm of the Democratic National Committee, dedicated to the defeat of Republicans.

Is Durbin actually racist? The answer is almost certainly “no.” But his transparent, cynical political ploy should have been completely ignored by the media, rather than given credibility that can only cause harm.

This is especially the case given that it is Durbin and his fellow Democrats who are holding up the trafficking bill Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said will have to pass before Lynch’s nomination can be complete.

Note: Durbin’s office did not respond to my multiple requests for comment about his quickly changing positions on minority nominees. Given his record of shoving black Republicans to the back of the bus, and building political border walls for Hispanic Republicans, I can understand why.

Wendy Davis’s Convenient Abortion Stories

WD
-The article was originally published at National Review.

-Struggling Texas candidate tugs heartstrings with unverifiable personal tales.

Texas Democratic-party gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis’s new book Forgetting to Be Afraid came out Monday, and the book’s claims have brought some new attention to the floundering Davis campaign. Davis writes that in 1997 she had an abortion that caused “deep, dark despair.” She writes that “Baby Tate” was suffering and would have died shortly after birth.

The abortion was Davis’s second. She claims that the first was done because the pregnancy was ectopic and therefore a danger to her health.

Reactions to the alleged revelation have varied. Some have offered compassion for both Davis and her deceased child, expressing sorrow over Davis’s alleged depression, which is a frequent — and frequently ignored — consequence of abortion. Others have looked at the motivation for publishing the book less than two months before an election that Davis is on course to lose by double digits. Still others question the accuracy of her claims related to the abortion.

Read more

Four Ways the Media Subtly Shills for the Democratic Party

op
-The article was originally published at National Review.

Media bias is real — just look at the evidence.

With the 2014 elections approaching, the American people will once again rely on the so-called fourth estate to help them decide what candidates to support. And while bias in the media is rampant regardless of the source, National Review, CNS, and my bosses atLifeSiteNews.com admit where we’re coming from.

Meanwhile, mainstream outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post,ABC News, and others not only claim to be straight down the middle in their reporting and editorializing, but they also garner far more viewership than the admittedly biased media sources. (Fox is an exception in its avoidance of liberal bias and its outsized ratings, but the king of cable, Bill O’Reilly, for example,garners far less viewership than each of the CBS, NBC, and ABC evening shows.)

So it’s important that the American voter, who uses the Times, the Post,and the evening news shows as their main outlets for news, understands how they can frame the news such that they essentially become shills for the Democratic Party’s policies and attack lines.

Four broad examples of this pattern:

Read more

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

pbs
-This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com.

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary “After Tiller” on Labor Day, PBS’ “POV” affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to “change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.”

POV told LifeSiteNews, “We do believe that ‘After Tiller’ adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely.” Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it “does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view.”

Read more

Exclusive: D.A. explains sentencing of porn prof who assaulted 16-year-old pro-lifer

MMKY
-This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com.

Earlier this week Mireille Miller-Young, a professor of porn and black studies at the University of California Santa Barbara, was sentenced to three years probation, 108 hours of community service, and 10 hours of anger-management classes, following her attack on a 16-year-old pro-life activist. She was also ordered to pay nearly $500 in restitution to the girl’s family.

In an exclusive phone call with LifeSiteNews, Santa Barbara Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen explained the reasoning behind that sentence, explaining that Judge Brian Hill gave Miller-Young exactly the punishment the attorney’s office recommended.

Miller-Young had previously pled no-contest to three charges of grand theft from a person, battery, and vandalism after she stole a sign from Thrin Short and her sister in March. In addition to scratching Thrin, she destroyed the stolen sign. Two students assisted with the theft of the sign.

Read more