In Defense Of All Life (Abortion)

Lila Rose is the President of an anti-abortion group called Live Action.

Watch the video of Lila speaking here.

If I could insist that as long as bombings of innocent civilians are legal in the US that we show the results of these campaigns to the public through the imagery of the dead children and the dead bodies of unarmed civilians published in newspapers and televised in the media.

Until we were so sick and tired of seeing the injustice that we would do away with it altogether.

Maybe then we might value all life, like we value American life.

Maybe then we might hear angels signing as we dismantle our blood-soaked war machine.

My request is illegal in the US.

You cannot show the bodies of the dead in US media.

I am convinced that if we changed that law, and had a free press in a country that grants Freedom of The Press, we would see an end to war-profiteering and an end to American Imperialism.

But that life doesn’t matter to Lila Rose.

All the corpses of those killed in the name of finding WMDs don’t matter more than dirt to her.

All those murdered by contractors and tortured by interrogators don’t matter more than spit to her.

The only life these sort of people care to protect is unborn life. And in the process they want to harm, imprison and in some cases kill anyone who does anything but resoundingly agree with them.

Lila has since launched several successful undercover investigations exposing racism and statutory rape cover-up at Planned Parenthood. Her brave work has revealed new evidence to build a strong case against the abortion industry and lobby.

In other words she has waged a slander campaign like that of the one James O’Keefe waged against ACORN. Most likely she lied to people and targeted this group that she personally feels animosity toward until she found what she wanted to find. Exactly like the false campaign on ACORN. These people are nothing but McCarthyists and propagandists.

And there is no such thing as the “abortion industry” nor the “abortion lobby”. That’s just political spin to make it sound like groups that are Pro-Choice are in fact pro-abortion.

An outright lie.

Advertisements

Dick Cheney is an American Disgrace

55_cheneyI wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that President Obama has made the country any less safe since entering office. The notion that immoral practices will make us any more safe from terrorism is counter-intuitive to my core beliefs.

The CIA Enhanced Interrogation Program was one of the most effective terrorist recruitment tools and a project expressly advocated by former-Vice President Cheney which is now noticeably absent from terrorist recruitment methods.

The approved torture methods of the Bush administration have presented one of the greatest threats to our continued national security to date.

Not only is it disgraceful for Cheney to criticize the current administration as a member of the former but also as to his own level of personal integrity to turn the issue of national security on it’s head by denying the immorality of torture tactics.

The Politics of Fear remain the only tool left to Neo-Conservative Americans.

I see a land of injustice where prosecutions of some order are not undertaken. Those who wrote the legal opinions used to justify these torture tactics must face consequences.

The Justice Department cannot dispense justice onto itself.

A Special Prosecutor must be appointed.

If anything, President Obama has yet to do enough to restore justice and security to our nation.

Global Warming: Politi-Science or Fact?

Let’s crack this egg wide open.

Here’s what I understand so far:

————————————————————

Years back, a group of scientists came together and presented a case to the world based on their work.

 

They sought to show essentially three items:

 

a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gases are increasing due to human action.

 

b) CO2 causes a green-house gas effect that causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme climate change including extreme colds, warms and weather.

 

c) Unless CO2 levels decrease worldwide the planet will be damaged beyond a repairable state.

————————————————————

Now another group of scientists recently came out to try to disprove the ‘global warming agenda’ citing their own evidence.

 

They are seeking to show essentially these three items:

 

a) CO2 is a natural gas that is less harmful to environment than reported previously. Harmful gases such Carbon Monoxide should fall under government regulation but not CO2.

 

b) They have studied the green-house gas effect data presented and do not concur that this is the cause of climate change. The planet is undergoing cyclical changes not recorded previously due to lack of technology required. 

 

c) CO2 levels and their mandated decrease is ‘politicizing science’ and not a scientific agenda but rather an anti-industry agenda.

————————————————————

 

I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this but I’ve listened to a lot of commentary on it, I can assure you.

 

The bottom line is that no significant figure in any government is coming forward about the one important issue to address:

 

CAN WE LIMIT CO2 GAS EMISSIONS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN INDUSTRIAL NATION?

 

Those versed in this topic will know that certain major super-power nations (China & Russia) refuse to participate in carbon credit programs or CO2 gas mandates on their industries.

 

They believe that regulating such gases will cause a loss of profit necessary to maintain their populations. Or a similar case made in defense of themselves.

 

I would like to take the time and read both of these studies and all the data and every professional I can find who ever said / wrote anything about it. But this is what I see. One side brings a valid argument about how far we can do these actions and remain strong in industry and the other side brings a valid point that once enough damage is done in ignorance there is no return from ruin.

 

Michael Crichton, famed author, held the opinion before his death in 2008 that the combining of politics and science was something he saw as very possible in coming years and very dangerous in its nature. I tend to agree with the author of “Jurassic Park” but I don’t know if I fully trust some internet downloaded research data, and I’m not flying of to foreign countries to gather up all the documents either.

 

I just want to focus on empirical evidence when we talk science and focus on personal conviction when he talk politics. That’s all. Is that some crazy request?

 

I feel it important for those who didn’t know to know that the worldwide scientific community accepts the idea of green house gases effecting current climate changes.

 

————————————————————

 

And let us not forget the pure-politics side of this:

 

Former American Vice-President Al Gore of the Democratic Party has run up the ideological hill and he is not coming back down on this one.

 

He is behind the ‘carbon credit’ concept along with others. Gore remains one of the most controversial figures in certain circles of America because of his intractability on the global warming crisis-issue.

 

The Republican Party, long before any but bought-off scientists said word one on global warming, decried the whole thing a myth created in some liberal agenda book or manifested by what some called ‘religious-environmentalism.’

 

The study I mention are not bought-off scientists, as far my informational sources provide, but rather simply dissenting scientists from the group of scientists that initially presented the whole concept.

 

In the campaign for The White House this year (2008) each campaign had the same line on global warming:

 

“We need to do something about global climate change.”

 

The critical thing to know is that the vocal conservatives, prior to the RNC speech of John McCain where he directly addressed global warming, there was a constant smearing and mocking attitude of people who wanted to speak out on this issue of climate change. Then all of sudden they just stopped talking about it and mocking anyone about that. Not one more mention of those ‘crazy global warming kooks,’ for quite a long time.

 

I tend to believe they and most outspoken-Republicans did was actually read what I read when it came out like 8 years ago and now I can’t remember the name of. The Global Warming Treaty let’s call it for now, because that’s easy for me.

 

Another strange hush-factor that struck the limited-conservatives during the campaign is the whole immigration issue.

 

That’s another issue entirely but both candidates and the right-wing media just completely shut their traps on that issue, almost entirely to date.

 

The only reason it’s significant to bring up is that these loons that call others ‘Enviro-Nazis’ also bashed anyone who didn’t want to ‘kick the bums out of my country.’ They did this ten-fold on John McCain when he sought some kind of solution oriented legislation on the issue. Now they feel better about starting those old lines up again but nobody seems to want to actually do anything about it over in what I hear from Republican-land.

 

It is like a willingness to shove your head in the sand as far it will go. Then leave it there for the course of an entire campaign.

 

Evidence that the Republican Party is willing to engage in not only ‘Politi-science’ tactics but to a willing blindness to anything that is a serious issue in the nation. 

 

They just want to talk about homosexuality or atheism while we go broke and choke to death.

 

 

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 22nd 2008

R.I.P. Mark Felt (1913-2008)

1.JFKfelt2

A true hero of America if there ever was.

‘Deepthroat’ they called him back when the mass media was young and I wasn’t even an idea yet.
While he was but a speck in a huge pile of corrupt politics, he was a voice of conscious in a storm of perversion.

Those blind to reviewing facts even to this day call him a “traitor.” Where do their allegiances truly lie? With the truth, or with whatever corruption their assume to impose upon them?

He spoke out to the free press to the American people about an issue that concerned them. The things he said that were factual led to bringing down a dangerous President.

Let it never be said unchallenged that Mark Felt should not go down in history as a great American and a defender of the people’s right to a lawful and ethical government.

 

Presumption of Innocence in the Media is Gone

I think the U.S. news media just got tired of the word “allegedly” in regards to OJ Simpson case in the 90’s and thereafter.
Now when anyone is up on charges or accused of anything above an exact threshold that they set, they are “insta-guilty!” in everything but the most stoic of sources in American culture.

I tend to think that “Blago” as we want to call him is not at all innocent of these charges but I wrote a piece of student-journalism regarding the whole issue without accusing him in innuendo or directly. It’s not exactly hard to presume innocence.

[Read “Government Corruption: What to Know to Protect Ourselves” on my Observing America weblog.]

It just drives up ratings / hits if you call him a “corruption king” or a “master of evil” or a “fraud miser.” Solid evidence be damned! Prosecutor opinions and partial pieces of a case leaked to the press be praised!

Yes, I heard the tape of him swearing every other word. And I saw all the FCC blocked out quotes, too. (Why do they even put things like that on TV when it’s more asterisk than English?)

But any one of us could have secret tapes made of us where we said crazy stuff we wouldn’t say in public. Now imagine taking the whole tape and cutting it into 5 seconds or one paragraph of juiciness.

See how anyone could be the media boogie-man by tomorrow regardless of how insane they actually are? Maybe you’re next on the list.

We hold court in this country for a reason.

So the court of public opinion doesn’t start ‘Blago Mobs’ in Illinois, in this case.

You tell me why it is a good idea to have a free media that freely assumes guilt of anyone facing charges they think are big enough to matter.

Not to mention that statute violations and ethical board decisions are often passed over or reported in brief and then unreferenced in later discussions because they do not stimulate enough ratings due to the ‘oh that’s boring’ and the ‘give me a real scandal’ attitudes.

What other media watchdogs are barking, I wonder?

The Hammer, The Sickle, The Shoe?

In regard to recent tossing of footwear:

If an American press corps member threw a clipboard, let’s make it metal, at the Iranian Prime Minister the conservatives of our nation would decry for his immediate release from detainment on the grounds of being a political prisoner held against the will of the public.

There is a big, bad logic flaw in this latest conservative blab:

“Under Saddam, this guy’s held would have rolled after he threw any footwear.”

Who is getting the treatment here? The Iraqi Prime Minister had no shoes thrown at him, as far I can recall. Bush is not and never was the ruler of Iraq. If Bush were to visit like that under Saddam’s rule then they probably would build a statue of the reporter holding hands with good old Saddam. If he threw one at Saddam then it comes to if the international eye was on him or not. If not then this idea might work and we would never hear about him in the first place, making in the entire issue moot. But if every country could pick up that feed then even someone like a dictator would have some troubles. Saddam still might off the guy, in this reckless scenario, but the worldwide media would go right ahead with reporting that he was executed for his actions under a dictator and this man would die a hero. All thanks to the “disgusting liberal media hounds.”

There is also an obvious logic flaw in non-violent American individuals who promote throwing things in protest:

Political statement in our culture is our issue and they have theirs in Iraq. If you don’t like the idea of the image of ‘America the Bully’ then try to do yourself what we teach our children to do. Use your words.

I understand the sentiment but anytime I write about things like clipboards and shoes and the slapping of lips, I am using examples or failed attempts at comedy. The test comes not in what we say but what we do and I actually walk away from fights in the real world.

No security blanket of the web.

I’m not perfect. Just last night I was illustrating the point that if someone had some serious beef with me to just bring it and let’s be done with it. I‘m not down to hold on to that garbage and nonsense. In a strange way, that sums up my foreign policy stance.

The classic true pacifist-test is would you join the Army or other military org if there was mainland invasion or the ‘a real WWIII?’ God forbid.

The bottom line is that I have the luxury of being a ideological pacifist because I don’t have to fight for food or survival on a day to day basis. Or at least the last time I went outside I wasn’t dodging bullets and secret police squads.

I think the concept of spreading democracy where there is none is great, in principal, but a nation that holds recent debates over the results of its own elections in the highest court are hardly fit to bring democracy to anyone.

Let alone at the end of a gun. Let alone there was no preceding invasion of another nation state to drive us into the war. Let alone we allowed our proud military to mix with guns-for-hire.

Savage Radio, Savage Language, Savage Consequences

For those unaware of Michael Savage and his San Francisco based talk radio show, I do not recommend you listen to this show.
Here’s why I bring it up at all:

The first inclination, and the standard political response, is to decry calling another person any form of trash or saying that they have no worth. But I can assure that Michael Savage does nothing but spew hateful trash and provides nothing of worth to society with his radio program.

Words and their definitions do matter, but each individual is allowed to draw their own opinions on what those definitions interpret as and how they fit into our language. Savage is entitled to express his opinion over competing definitions.

Just as I will now say that scum who promote one-sided agendas and wrap themselves in the flag whenever challenged are one of the biggest threats to political discourse and continued freedom of choice in our leaders.

Next the issue of mental illness and the seriousness of accurate diagnosis:

The need to explain in rational terms the vast divergence of political thought is not some fresh issue that Savage stumbled upon and wrote a book about from empirical evidence and under credible peer review.

His views are his and not supported by any empirical facts whatsoever.

It is a pure mystery of humanity that he and I can read the same Constitution and case rulings, then come to such utterly different conclusions. Anyone such as he who claims to have solved such a mystery must immediately be called into suspect classifications in terms of credibility and reliability.

Our entire government is designed around facilitating a bipartisan exchange of concepts between significant parties. The political parties hold the general popular beliefs of the people and represent the ideological and social shifts in America. albeit poorly.

To claim that any one group (liberal, conservative, federalist, libertarian, socialist, communitarian, anarchist, etc.) a thinking or set of beliefs that originates from chemical imbalances in the brain, without insurmountable and overwhelming proof is tantamount to encouraging the spread of tyranny into our American electoral process.

The concept in question also devises a situation in which all information or perspectives outside of a status-quo are rejected off-hand without consideration. Were this mentality to spread into our private industry, political lobbying and daily culture we would cease to live in the Land of the Free and contort into the Land of the Afraid, the Land of the Ignorant.

Freedom of speech means Savage can and should stay on the air until America finally laughs him off the radio stage, or he just quits. If his on-air commentary and sentiments are at all honest I would quit my job and move to some undisclosed island were I him.

He obviously despises about sixty-percent of the country, for one reason or another.

In the interest of full disclosure, I used to listen to the Savage program daily. I never once agreed in political terms with him but, like so many radio conservatives, I agree on certain social issues. For example, both Eric and Michael think high school kids should get a job and earn a paycheck instead of a phone bill each month.

The point being that finding common ground is not that hard, if only you look.

These days I cannot withstand the bile coming from Savage for more than short bursts so perhaps there are many more little things I could flower-up my comments on this man with and I am admittedly ignorant of.

The fact that he wants Muslim-Americans persecuted for pursuing freedom of religion, desires free thinking youth silenced or jailed for protests and holds the illogical belief that police departments and government officials never ever make mistakes so we can just get rid of all those defense attorneys out there leaves me little sympathy for someone with whom I would otherwise enjoy logically debating national issues.

Men like him pick a target and don’t care if it doesn’t make sense or hurts the nation or degrades our freedom. Destroying bipartisan hopes with mad clatter and hate rambling.

Like his sentiment that crime, gang violence, low-moral conduct and drug abuse begins at home with the parents, the nature of wasted time in the courts also starts at home. The personal choice to sue as a first resort or sue to pay the bills comes from parents who fail to instill a strong sense of personal responsibility in their children.

The people who file these lawsuits and the lawyers arguing them instead of refusing them are at the core of this blame. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what Savage proposes we should do in regards to the legal / civil litigation issues in this country.

The greatest trouble I see with this loose cannon on the air is that his rhetoric will only drive people into the fringe camps of the media-government censorship legislation advocates, like the Fairness Doctrine advocates. Most people do not share in my faith in the intelligence of the American people and believe that someone so vile would surely be a danger to us all. This is not so.

There are times, in my personal opinion, that Savage crosses that line of clear and present danger to the public as a whole. But it is highly unlikely any court would support my ideas on this. If you personally ever think he or any person actually posed a threat, in something you actually heard them say, then call the station.

Savage takes calls, I’ll give him that. He knows that it is not his format but the people’s format.

Let it never be said I do not take some efforts to be fair about my subjects.